ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Consumer Protection

William Bain: What steps he is taking to increase protection for consumers in the energy market.

Edward Davey: As the independent regulator of the gas and electricity markets, Ofgem’s primary duty is to protect consumers, and it has consulted on proposals to improve consumer protection and competition in its retail market review. The Government have consulted on new powers for Ofgem to compel energy companies to provide redress to consumers who have lost out because of a regulatory breach.

William Bain: According to the Government’s own figures, fuel poverty in England is set to rise by 400,000 this year. In Scotland, more than one in four people are in fuel poverty, in Wales the figure is one in three and in Northern Ireland it is nearly one in two, yet 5 million customers are still being overcharged by the big six energy companies. When will the Government take the strong action that is needed with those companies to ensure that over-75s are always put on the cheapest tariffs—a change that would help 6,299 people in my constituency and 4 million pensioners across the country?

Edward Davey: The Government have consulted on how we can change the measure of fuel poverty so that it is more exact and so that we can ensure that we tackle the worst fuel poverty. The previous Government could not even measure fuel poverty properly. As regards ensuring that the big companies give a fairer deal, Ofgem’s retail market review is considering everything from standards of contact to improving billing and tariff simplification. Those and other measures will help people.

John Baron: The Government have accepted the billing stakeholder group’s recommendation that information should be put on all energy bills, by this Christmas, detailing how much a customer could save if they were on that company’s cheapest standard direct debit tariff. Understandably, Ofgem cannot confirm whether it will implement that,
	so what will the Government do to raise the matter with the Prime Minister and the big six in any forthcoming deliberations?

Edward Davey: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for all his work on this important issue. He has made a valuable contribution. We are raising the matter, because we take it very seriously. Ensuring that consumers have the right information so that they can switch to cheaper tariffs is very important.

Tom Greatrex: It is not just households that need better protection in the energy market. Small businesses are also consumers under pressure from soaring bills. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech on 16 May, my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) asked the Secretary of State to end unfair roll-over contracts, stop small businesses being subject to six years of back-billing and ensure that energy companies act responsibly towards small firms that have fallen into difficulty. On that occasion, he was not able to give an answer. Now that he has had a chance to reflect on those issues, will he give an answer and indicate whether the Government are serious about Britain’s small businesses having support in the energy market if they are to help us to get out of recession?

Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question, but we will take no lectures about helping small businesses. We have done a huge amount across government to help small businesses, and, as he should know, Ofgem is looking into the issue.

Robert Halfon: Sixty-five Members of Parliament of all parties have signed a Back-Bench motion calling for an Office of Fair Trading inquiry into the uncompetitive role of oil companies in keeping prices high at the pump. Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on the OFT to carry out that inquiry?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I have been looking into that issue, but as a former competition Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills I am clear that independent competition authorities are critical to effective competition policy. I would not want to be seen to be putting undue political pressure on a valuable independent institution.

Consumer Credit

Mary Glindon: What assessment he has made of the potential effects on consumers of proposed changes to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 regarding early repayments and the green deal.

Gregory Barker: The hon. Lady raises an important issue and we have taken a lot of care over it. Any green deal provider will be able to charge additional penalties only if it is genuinely able to prove that it will suffer a loss as a result of a consumer’s decision to repay early. In addition, all consumers will have the ability to challenge any additional penalties, with recourse to the Financial Ombudsman Service where necessary.

Mary Glindon: Given that the Department’s own impact assessment predicts interest rates as high as 9.5% under the green deal, does the Minister think the added possibility of a hefty penalty for early repayment will help to present a compelling case to families hoping to bring their energy bills down?

Gregory Barker: I understand the hon. Lady’s worries, which are why we have considered the matter so carefully, but there is a balance to be struck. If there are not penalties for those who repay early, the rest of the market will bear the additional risk and lack of profit, pushing up the cost of green deal plans for everybody else. I hope the interest rates will be significantly lower than she said, but we think we have got the right balance between consumer protection and a dynamic market.

Electricity Generation

Phillip Lee: What estimate he has made of likely capital costs for new electricity generating capacity under (a) contracts for difference and (b) a premium feed-in tariff.

Charles Hendry: The impact assessment published alongside the electricity market reform White Paper provides details of the capital costs of different approaches. The analysis shows that the cost of capital is lower under the contract for difference than under the premium feed-in tariff. The same low-carbon generation mix would cost £2.5 billion less to build under our chosen approach.

Phillip Lee: Although I recognise that the contracts for difference model is cheaper than a premium feed-in tariff, I am somewhat concerned about its complexity, and potential investors share that concern. Will the Department consider revisiting the model to simplify it?

Charles Hendry: I assure my hon. Friend that we are always looking for measures that will simplify the structures, although I would draw attention to comments from EDF, a key investor, which says:
	“The Contracts for Difference…which sits at the centre of the Bill, will be key to delivering investment that represents value for money, and protects consumers. It is a simple, transparent and proven instrument.”

Alan Whitehead: Does the Minister accept that the contracts for difference impact study was undertaken when the idea was that the state would be the counterparty to the CFD? Now that is no longer the case, will he provide a new impact assessment that compares the relative costs and advantages of CFDs and premium FITs before the proposal is finalised in the energy Bill?

Charles Hendry: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the work that he and his fellow members of the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change have done on the proposal and on alternative counterparty models. The Government have made one approach clear in the draft Bill, but we have also made it clear that
	a single counterparty model could work separately. If we propose different models, we will publish a separate impact assessment.

Renewables Obligation

Andrew George: When he plans to announce the outcome of the renewables obligation banding review.

Edward Davey: I plan to announce the outcome of the renewables obligation banding review very shortly.

Andrew George: To secure essential jobs and investment, the industry needs certainty, clarity and rational decisions based on evidence and not on emotion. That is especially true of wave energy in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that decisions will be clearly evidence-based?

Edward Davey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on promoting renewable energy in his constituency and his county of Cornwall, particularly in respect of marine energy. I can reassure him that the Government will make decisions based on the evidence. We will crunch through the more than 4,000 responses we have had—an awful lot of evidence, including some substantial new evidence—and our decisions will reflect the evidence.

Caroline Lucas: Does the Secretary of State share my concern about the mooted 25% cut to onshore wind support? Does he agree that it would disastrous for wind? Does he also agree that the recent announcement of a £1 billion loan from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to Petrobas for deep-sea drilling in the south Atlantic completely undermines any progress on renewable energy?

Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Lady on asking three questions, but I will not anticipate the announcement that we will make shortly. We support onshore wind—we believe it is a cost-competitive renewable technology, and that it has an important place in decarbonisation and in a secure energy supply.

Chris Heaton-Harris: As my right hon. Friend will know, if onshore wind is cost-competitive, it will not need support. If, as he has said in previous answers to me, of our 13GW target, 5GW have been built, 6GW are through the planning gate and 8GW are in planning in the summer of 2012, the level of subsidy is surely way too high.

Edward Davey: I have to disappoint my hon. Friend. The fact that we are supporting the industry is one reason why investment has come forward in large numbers. The 6GW that have been consented and the 6.5GW in the planning system would not necessarily go ahead if there were dramatic cuts in subsidies.

Caroline Flint: In the year in which the solar industry was undermined, there are fears that the Government are turning their fire on the cheapest form of clean energy—onshore wind power—by proposing a cut of 25%. In the words of one industry
	expert, that would “kill dead” new wind developments. Perhaps some Government Members would like that. The Secretary of State has briefed the press that he does not support such a cut—neither do the Opposition—so why does he not stand up to his Conservative colleagues who want to kill off the British wind industry?

Edward Davey: I have to disappoint the right hon. Lady, because my Conservative colleagues and I are working very closely on this matter. Both Government parties support decarbonisation and understand the critical role that renewables can play, whereas under Labour renewable investment did not occur and we had one of the worst records in Europe. She will have to be patient, but we will make the announcement, and it will be a very good announcement.

Caroline Flint: The mixed messages coming from Government Members have blighted policy in this area. Investors, who want to bring new jobs and industries to this country, are crying out for certainty and confidence, but I am afraid the Secretary of State just does not get that. The message from the Government seems to be that Britain is closed for green business, which is why Vestas has scrapped its plans for a factory in Kent and Siemens is warning that its plans for a new factory and port complex could be put at risk too. Before any more firms axe jobs in Britain, will he tell us today, before the House rises, that the Government will scrap the 25% cut and get behind British low-carbon jobs once and for all?

Edward Davey: Once again, the facts do not support the right hon. Lady’s case. There has been a large increase in investment in renewables in the past year, which has created more than 20,000 jobs, and confidence in the sector is actually extremely high. When we make our announcement, I believe we will see billions of pounds of investment coming forward.

Generating Capacity

Peter Aldous: What estimate he has made of the level of investment in generating capacity (a) under the existing renewables obligation and (b) in the future.

Edward Davey: The renewables obligation has succeeded in providing support worth about £2 billion a year to renewable electricity in the UK. Industry announcements over the last financial year amounted to renewables investments totalling £6.9 billion, which potentially will support more than 20,800 jobs. We plan to publish details of the additional investment arising from the RO banding review shortly.

Peter Aldous: To maximise investment in the offshore renewables sector, it is important to provide investors with certainty on electricity market reform as soon as is possible. Will the Secretary of State confirm that progressing the draft energy Bill will be given the highest priority when the House returns and that he will take all other steps necessary to provide this certainty?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and has been a champion of the offshore wind industry. I congratulate him on that. The draft energy Bill has been
	widely welcomed by many people in the offshore wind industry because they see that it contains the instruments needed. We are pressing ahead with the timetable in the White Paper that we published last July. I am grateful to the Energy and Climate Change Committee for how it has gone about is rapid pre-legislative scrutiny. We will look carefully at its report, and we hope to publish the full Bill in the autumn.

David Hanson: Will the Minister welcome the creation of more than 100 jobs at Mostyn docks in my constituency, based on the development at Gwynt y Môr offshore wind farm off the north Wales coast, which was supported by the previous Labour Government? Will he recognise that wind farms and wind generation are not just about cheap electricity but about economic development? Will he therefore heed what my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) said about supporting the wind industry both onshore and offshore?

Edward Davey: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. It is very good news that jobs are being created. The story of onshore, offshore, the renewables industry and our energy policies generally is to bring forward new investment and jobs. We are proud of that, and will continue with that support.

Energy Efficiency

Kelvin Hopkins: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Heidi Alexander: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Lilian Greenwood: What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

Gregory Barker: Our flagship energy efficiency measure is the green deal, which is supported by the £1.3 billion per annum energy company obligation. We are making very good progress towards its introduction, which starts this autumn, and we expect roll-out to grow strongly in 2013 and beyond, bringing new entrants, greater competition, consumer choice and innovation to this growing market.

Kelvin Hopkins: A crash programme to insulate every home in Britain would save millions of people money on their fuel bills and keep them warm in the winter. It would also be billions of pounds cheaper than investing in nuclear power. Will the Government undertake a rigorous cost-benefit study of these alternatives?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Energy efficiency is a no-brainer. That is why we have given unprecedented importance and attention to it and for the first time have created within the Department an office of energy efficiency deployment. The green deal will involve a far greater range of interventions in
	people’s homes, unlike previous programmes, which were very limited, so I think the green deal will achieve the aims he seeks.

Heidi Alexander: May I bring to the Minister’s attention the excellent work done by Lewisham council in its insulation partnership, which has seen almost 3,000 homes receive cavity wall and loft insulation in the last six months? Given the difficulties that the Government have experienced in getting the energy companies to meet their household energy efficiency obligations, does he agree that local authorities have a vital role to play in ensuring that as many people as possible can benefit from lower fuel bills?

Gregory Barker: Absolutely. The hon. Lady makes a sound point, and that is exactly why I shall shortly be issuing new guidance to local authorities, under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, making it clear that I expect every single local authority to draw up a strategy to roll out the green deal to all parts of their areas. Local authorities and communities are key to the success of the green deal.

Lilian Greenwood: In the last five years of the Labour Government, 2,456 people in my constituency got help through Warm Front to make their homes more energy efficient and to cut their energy bills. Can the Minister explain why just 80 people in Nottingham South were helped last year?

Gregory Barker: I cannot give the hon. Lady a breakdown of that, but I can tell her—[ Interruption. ] I will happily write with more detail about Nottingham South, but I can say that we helped a large number of people through Warm Front last year. However, we need to do much more than we could possibly achieve under the relatively limited Warm Front programme, which experienced so many troubles when the Labour party was in government. The green deal is going to be transformational and offer not just the very poor but everyone the opportunity to retrofit their homes.

Luciana Berger: We have been telling the Minister for months that, to be a success, the green deal must be a good deal. According to calculations confirmed by a spokesman in his Department, if we take the Government’s intended rate of interest—7.5%, which is lower than the highest rate under the impact assessment—a household taking out a green deal of £10,000 would have to pay back around £22,000 over a 25-year period, which is more than double the cost of paying for the measures up front. Does the Minister think that represents a good deal?

Gregory Barker: I do not think there is any division between the hon. Lady and myself in wanting a good deal. We can certainly agree on that, and that is why we have put so much time and effort into this transformational plan. However, the obsession with interest rates alone, to the exclusion of everything else, does not serve her well. I think that the Labour party is actually announcing that it would subsidise interest. That will cost consumers billions and force up everybody’s energy bills. Why do the Opposition not just come clean, say that they are going to subsidise interest and put everybody’s bills up, rather than doing what we are doing, which is coming forward with a progressive market solution?

Luciana Berger: I thank the Minister for that response, but he need refer only to the contributions I made in debates on secondary legislation to know that there are many things in the green deal that we are concerned about, beyond the interest rate. With interest rates so high, there is a great risk that the public will not be interested in the green deal. We know from polling conducted by the Great British Refurb campaign that anything over 6% means that 90% of the British people will just not be interested. Indeed, the Department estimates that the number of homes being insulated next year will fall dramatically. Given that the green deal is meant to launch in October, why is the Minister not doing something about this now, to ensure that consumers really will get a good deal?

Gregory Barker: We are absolutely committed to giving consumers a good deal, which involves a high range of competition, new entrants and more choice. This is not some Stalinist five-year plan; this is a brand new market. It is perfectly valid to suggest that there should be subsidised interest rates, but let us hear how the Labour party is going to pay for that and how much Labour is going to put on consumer bills. We have a proposal for targeted support from the green investment bank, but the hon. Lady’s blanket approach, which does not understand economics, would be very costly for everybody and force up bills for families.

Renewable Energy

Peter Lilley: What comparison he has made of the potential capital cost of meeting the Government’s 2020 renewable target using wind power backed up by open-cycle gas plants and meeting the same level of electricity demand using combined-cycle gas plants.

Charles Hendry: The capital costs of gas plant are slightly lower than onshore wind, although the operating costs are much higher and more unpredictable. An electricity supply reliant on gas would therefore be cheaper to build at present, but it would not offer the security of supply that the country needs. A responsible energy policy requires a diverse energy mix, combining gas, renewables, nuclear and fossil fuels with carbon capture.

Peter Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his answer. Can I take it from the fact that he does not give specific figures that he agrees with the figures in the report by Professor Gordon Hughes, the professor of energy economics at Edinburgh university, “Why Is Wind Power So Expensive?”? The cost of providing a given amount of power by wind plus open-cycle gas turbines is greater than the cost of using efficient combined-cycle gas turbines by a factor of 10. Is that really something that the consumer can afford, if it saves only £500 million a year in operating costs?

Charles Hendry: I do not agree with Professor Hughes, and neither does the Committee on Climate Change or the Centre for Energy Policy and Technology at Imperial college. One of the main differences is the assessment of how much wind might be necessary, and we believe that the professor has overestimated that by a third, which
	automatically reduces the cost by £30 billion. Furthermore, he has not looked at the range of alternative back-up provisions, including interconnectors, or at the likely price of gas in the future.

Nicholas Dakin: What steps are the Government taking to ensure that capital investment in wind monopiles will result in manufacturing taking place in the UK using UK steel, so that UK energy bill payers and UK taxpayers can fund UK jobs?

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman raises a critical point. We have secured agreement with the offshore wind industry that it will work to ensure that 50% of the supply chain involves UK companies, compared with perhaps 10% in the early projects. We want this to be a real industrial policy that brings help to constituencies, such as his, that have a great industrial heritage. We want this to be a joined-up policy.

Green Deal

Damian Hinds: What steps he is taking to ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises can participate in the green deal.

Gregory Barker: Small and medium-sized enterprises are key to the successful delivery of the green deal. To give them the help that they need to get started, we have given them special financial help to get the training that they need, and waived SME installer and assessor registration fees for the first two years of the green deal. We have also begun a series of regional green deal road shows aimed at explaining to SMEs exactly how they can access the market, and I am pleased to tell the House that they are proving highly popular.

Damian Hinds: Large installer companies will partner large financing companies to offer a seamless product to households. How will my hon. Friend promote white-labelled financing products so that small businesses in my constituency can do the same?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to suggest that a lot of SMEs want to be green deal providers and offer that service in their own right to consumers, and it is vital that they should be able to do so. I am pleased to say that a number of commercial offers are now coming forward to create exactly that white-label proposition, and the Department is doing everything that it can to facilitate that. We are also looking at other ways in which we can give confidence to the SME sector.

Mark Lazarowicz: Given the current financial situation, SMEs are often reluctant to take on additional loan finance even if they are offered it. Would the Minister therefore accept that it is particularly important that the support for SMEs under the green deal should have a large element of either grant or long-term financial support, rather than deals that are attractive only in the short term?

Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must have an easy-to-access offer for SMEs. The good news is that that can take a number of different shapes and forms, depending on an SME’s needs and on the offer that they want to provide for their customers. It is early days yet, but some interesting models are being put forward, and we are keen to support anything that helps to increase SME take-up.

Energy Market

Graeme Morrice: What assessment he has made of the potential effects of the provisions of the draft Energy Bill on the competitiveness of the energy market.

Huw Irranca-Davies: What assessment he has made of the potential effects of the provisions of the draft Energy Bill on the competitiveness of the energy market.

Edward Davey: The draft energy Bill focuses on encouraging greater investment and competition in the energy market as we make the transition to a low carbon future. The provisions in the Bill are about removing barriers to entry and allowing all forms of low carbon generation to come forward and compete on a level playing field. In addition to the provisions in the draft energy Bill, Ofgem has consulted on liquidity proposals and the Government have issued a call for evidence regarding the availability of long-term contracts for independent generators.

Graeme Morrice: I thank the Minister for his answer. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research, a respected think-tank, shows that if the energy market was more competitive, efficiency savings alone would knock £70 a year off the average energy bill. So why will the Government not get behind Labour’s plan to break up the dominance of the big six by requiring them to sell power into a pool? That would allow new businesses to enter the market, increase competition and drive down energy bills for families and businesses.

Edward Davey: Because Labour’s plan would not work. The critical factor for independent generators—the new competitors in the current and future markets—is that they need liquidity in the futures market, not in the day-ahead market. Liquidity in the day-ahead market has increased significantly, and the pool proposal that the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) has made would be about the day-ahead market. So we have already sorted that problem, and Ofgem is focusing on managing auctions for the futures markets, which is where the competition issue is.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Yet the Secretary of State knows that the whole sector of independent generators is sceptical about whether the necessary radical reforms are enshrined within the energy market reform as currently proposed. Does he think he will need to go further to have a more fundamental shake-up of the electricity market so that his vision of a genuinely competitive market for the interests of business and individual consumers will actually happen?

Edward Davey: The draft energy Bill is a fundamental shake-up of the electricity market, and it is widely recognised as such. That is why it has created such heated and interested debate. I have to say that I do not recognise the views the hon. Gentleman ascribes to independent generators. I have met groups of independent generators, and they welcome much of the Bill. They argued—and we listened—that more work needs to be done to ensure that finance is available, so we recently published a call for evidence to see whether we can make sure that the power purchase agreement market is as healthy as possible. That is another critical way in which we are trying to help competition.

Biomass-based Generation

Barry Sheerman: What steps he is taking to encourage biomass-based generation in appropriate and sustainable locations.

Charles Hendry: Alongside our bio-energy strategy, we have introduced the renewable heat incentive and are currently reviewing support levels for biomass electricity. We are introducing sustainability controls into financial incentives. We have reformed the planning system in England to promote sustainable development and to encourage local authorities to plan for renewables development in the right places.

Barry Sheerman: But does the Minister agree that there is enormous potential for biomass in this country, particularly because it is capable of being produced at the right size, volume and quantity in a location—and there is less resistance to that sort of biomass? The real problem comes when the biomass raw material is imported from South America and Africa and not grown in our own country.

Charles Hendry: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the benefits of biomass. In our estimate, in the areas of heat and electricity, biomass could account for 40% of the renewable energy that we need to achieve by 2020. We have to strike the right balance, as there are other uses for wood fuel in this country: it can be used in furniture and in panelling, which are important industries for this country. We believe it right to look at imported fuels as well, as long as they are sustainably produced.

Anne McIntosh: Drax power station takes fast-growing crops, grown especially in Thirsk, Malton and Filey, and provides a great source of income to farmers in very difficult times. Will the Government and the Minister do all they can to promote biomass in preference to wind farms as a renewable and sustainable source of energy?

Charles Hendry: We do not have to be either/or; we need a balanced energy portfolio. I think biomass offers a very significant immediate carbon gain when we move from coal-fired generation to biomass generation. Some exciting developments are happening in that sector, but having wind in the right locations is an important part of the mix, too.

Wind Farms

Julian Smith: What recent discussions he has had on the subsidy received by wind farm operators.

Edward Davey: Throughout the renewables obligation banding review and the comprehensive review of feed-in tariffs, I have had discussions with many stakeholders and with my officials and ministerial colleagues on subsidies for wind farm generators.

Julian Smith: The Coates family near Skipton were recently offered a bribe of £275,000 to put one wind turbine on their farm. They also received late-night bullying calls from the company, EnergieKontor. This behaviour is happening right across North Yorkshire. Does the Minister agree that the only way to fix it is drastically to cut the subsidy paid to these companies?

Edward Davey: I do not agree with my hon. Friend’s last point, but I would say that any bullying tactics by developers are completely unacceptable, and I join him in condemning them. The wind industry generally is committed to a good standard of community consultation and to providing community benefit. If my hon. Friend would like to send me the details of what he raised with me, I will take them up with RenewableUK. I do not believe such practices are widespread or that they are a consequence of renewable subsidies, but they are unacceptable.

Shale Gas Extraction

Joan Ruddock: What assessment he has made of the report by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering on shale gas extraction in the UK.

Charles Hendry: In response to calls for an independent and rigorous examination of the evidence on fracking, there could be no more authoritative or independent sources of advice than the UK’s science and engineering academies. Their report is therefore particularly welcome, and we will study it carefully in considering the future of fracking for shale gas in the UK. Its main message is that shale gas fracking could be allowed within strict environmental and safety constraints.

Joan Ruddock: As the Minister will know, the report says that some issues merit further consideration, including climate risks. For the avoidance of doubt, will he carry out a comprehensive assessment of the emissions arising from the extraction of shale gas, and indeed its subsequent use?

Charles Hendry: The right hon. Lady brings tremendous expertise to this debate. We have already commissioned independent advice on some of the fracking issues, which is being subjected to wider analysis and peer review. One of the most thorough assessments has been requested by Sir John Beddington, the Government’s chief scientist. We will look at all the evidence. We believe that the technology has a potential that must be
	explored, but that will be done only with the most careful analysis of all the environmental and safety considerations.

John Pugh: When can we look forward to the commercial production of shale gas in this country?

Charles Hendry: I think that it will be a while before we see commercial production. The situation here is very different from that in the United States, where, for example, landowners own the mineral rights beneath their homes. That is not the case in this country, so there is not the same economic driver. We are seeing some exciting assessments of the potential, but it will be some time before we see specific licences for development.

Renewable Energy

Caroline Nokes: What assessment he has made of the effect on security of supply of the Government’s renewable energy policy.

Charles Hendry: The Department carries out a range of analyses to assess future security of supply. That includes the impact of all technologies, including renewable energy. Our most recent analysis was published in December 2011, and reinforces our commitment to a balanced energy mix to help to deliver security of supply. Ofgem will provide an assessment of future security of supply by 1 September, in line with its obligations under the Energy Act 2011.

Caroline Nokes: Gas continues to play an essential role as both a transition and a destination fuel for a low-carbon economy. What measures is the Minister considering to ensure that we have a secure and affordable gas supply to underpin electricity generation and support our energy-intensive manufacturing sector?

Charles Hendry: As my hon. Friend may know, we are putting together a gas generation strategy. We will look at the long-term role for gas, including the role that it can play in combination with other technologies. Other work is being done in relation to the implications for security of supply. We shall need to address wider issues as we move towards becoming a net importer of gas, but we are in no doubt whatsoever about the contribution that it can make.

Nuclear Power

Damian Collins: What progress his Department has made on negotiations to build a new generation of nuclear power stations.

Charles Hendry: The Department of Energy and Climate Change regularly meets industry and other parties that are interested in the development of new nuclear power stations in the United Kingdom to discuss progress and the UK policy context. We are working with developers to address all relevant issues, so that they will be in a position to take final investment decisions as early as possible.

Damian Collins: Is the Minister prepared to maintain an open mind about the suitability of sites such as Dungeness in my constituency for new nuclear build, particularly if new evidence suggests that some of the initial concerns about the sites that have been raised by Natural England could be overcome?

Charles Hendry: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that we will always keep an open mind in regard to new evidence. The problem with the Dungeness site was that development there was not compatible with the EC habitats directive. The Government’s major infrastructure environment unit is continuing to investigate, and if there is additional evidence, I shall be pleased to meet my hon. Friend at any time to discuss it.

Dennis Skinner: If the Minister is happy to meet the nuclear generation people, will he also take an interest in coal? We have 100 years’ worth of coal beneath our feet, and it is high time the Government paid some attention to the industry. Not many pits are left, and some of those are in jeopardy. It is high time the Minister met those people, together with the National Union of Mineworkers.

Mr Speaker: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that as an alternative to new generation.

Dennis Skinner: You have hit the nail on the head.

Mr Speaker: The approval of the hon. Gentleman means a great deal to me.

Charles Hendry: I had never seen the hon. Gentleman as an advocate of alternative energy policies.
	I had a meeting yesterday with the head of the National Union of Mineworkers and the head of the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers, but if the hon. Gentleman feels that it is time for another meeting, I will of course consider that.

Green Investment Bank

Neil Carmichael: What assessment he has made of the likely implications for his Department’s energy policy on the green investment bank.

Edward Davey: The UK green investment bank policy is one of a number of policies which together will support the Government’s green and growth objectives. The bank, funded with £3 billion over the three years to 2015, will tackle gaps in the financing of green infrastructure projects. It will operate to a “double bottom line” of both achieving green impact and making positive financial returns. The initial priority sectors for the bank are offshore wind, waste and recycling, energy from waste, non-domestic energy efficiency, and support for the green deal.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State agree that the green investment bank is emblematic of the Government’s determination to promote economic growth, and does he recognise the importance of ensuring that small and medium-sized enterprises are part of that story?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: our energy infrastructure and climate change policies are very much part of our growth strategy, and are bringing forward serious investment. He is also right that SMEs play a critical role in this regard, particularly in respect of innovation and the supply chain that is developing in many of the new and existing markets that we are developing.

Joan Walley: How is the Secretary of State following up representations from ceramics companies in Stoke-on-Trent, who are intensive users of energy and who have an agenda for innovation and investment, and who very much want to have the support of the green investment bank for the work they do?

Edward Davey: As the hon. Lady will know, a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and Department of Energy and Climate Change consultation that has now closed looked at policies to help such energy-intensive industries. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary will introduce some of the proposals, and we hope they will cover a range of industries.

Energy Bills

Graham Stringer: What steps he plans to take to reduce the cost of energy bills for consumers.

Edward Davey: My Department is taking a number of steps to help consumers with energy bills. Programmes such as the carbon emissions reduction target, Warm Front, the green deal and the energy company obligation are helping to make more homes energy-efficient. The warm home discount provides direct help—worth £1.1 billion until 2015—to cut bills for 2 million low-income and vulnerable households. The voluntary agreement announced by the Deputy Prime Minister means suppliers will ensure that all consumers have good information on their supplier’s best tariff.

Graham Stringer: Those measures are trivial compared with the amount of subsidy going into wind farms, which has the effect of making rich landowners filthy rich, and by 2020 will put £1,000 per head on consumers’ energy bills. When is the Secretary of State going to change those policies so the consumer benefits, rather than rich landowners?

Edward Davey: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got his facts wrong. The support for renewable energy costs 6p a day per household, and in this financial year the warm home discount will result in 1 million of the poorest pensioners getting a discount of £130—so I have to say the hon. Gentleman is wrong.

Solar Panels

Mark Spencer: How many solar panels were installed in the most recent month for which figures are available.

Gregory Barker: About 13,800 solar PV installations, with a total capacity of 58.5 MW, were confirmed on to the feed-in tariff scheme’s central register in May 2012. I am pleased to report that that is more than double the number of installations—with more than triple the capacity—that were confirmed in the same month last year. Preliminary figures indicate even stronger growth this month.

Mark Spencer: Clearly, this is a very popular technology. Given that—and the discussion that has just taken place in the Chamber—might it be time to consider switching subsidy from wind farms to solar panels?

Gregory Barker: My hon. Friend is right: it is a very popular technology, and as our reformed FIT scheme is now driving down the costs and helping to promote competition, it is also scalable to a very large scale. Solar will be included properly for the first time in our renewables road map that we will publish later in the year. Solar will have a meaningful part to play in the energy future of Great Britain.

Oil and Gas Prices

Laura Sandys: What assessment he has made of the likely level of future global oil and gas prices.

Charles Hendry: DECC publishes low, central and high projections for long-term trends in world oil and gas prices. In 2011 prices, our central scenario is for oil to rise to $130 per barrel by 2030 and for gas to rise to a high of over 80p per therm in the middle of this decade, before falling back to settle at about 70p per therm.

Laura Sandys: Does the Minister see a time coming when we can decouple fossil fuel prices from low-carbon production prices?

Charles Hendry: We are already seeing some decoupling. We have seen a decoupling of the oil price from the gas price. We are expecting to see that gas will be an important source of generation in its own right, but that it will also have a very important future in providing back-up to renewable generation, which will inevitably be intermittent in most areas.

Mr Speaker: We are ahead of time today, and we will move on now to topical questions.

Topical Questions

David Morris: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Edward Davey: Since my Department’s last Question Time we have published a draft Energy Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny, set out the next steps for the green deal, publishing the detailed plans and secondary legislation, and we have helped to broker an EU energy-efficiency directive. There is also decarbonising power generation,
	a new market for energy-efficiency and European leadership on international climate change—it is an ambitious agenda.

David Morris: I thank my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive answer. However, may I ask him what steps his Department is taking to ensure that Horizon Nuclear Power switches from its current owner, E.ON, to a new one with the minimum of disruption to nuclear build in Britain?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will know that, ultimately, this is a commercial decision for the owners of Horizon Nuclear Power—RWE and E.ON—but we have been working with them to facilitate investors coming forward to talk to them. We are very optimistic that we will see the Horizon project sold to another consortium and that new nuclear build will continue.

Caroline Flint: Since this Government came to power, we have seen: the chaotic mismanagement of cuts to solar power; delays to the green deal; delays to the borrowing powers of the green investment bank; cuts to the Warm Front scheme, with far fewer people getting a chance to avail themselves of that support, as my hon. Friends have said; and an Energy Bill that was laughed out of the room by the Select Committee. We have also heard in questions today that the assessments for that Bill are going to have to be further revised. This week, we also learned that the Department has underspent its budget by nearly £400 million. Nobody is against the efficient management of office budgets, but this is a ministerial team who fudge decisions, make the wrong choices, cannot keep to timetables and are incapable of managing the budget. Is this not another example of the omnishambles that is spreading through this Government like a virus?

Edward Davey: The right hon. Lady is getting a name for inaccuracy on some of these points. Let me deal with the new issue that she has raised—the Department’s underspend. Some people would congratulate the Department on underspending—

Caroline Flint: It is £400 million.

Edward Davey: She says £400 million, but I am afraid that she needs to look at the facts, because the real figure for underspend is £266 million. That is still a large underspend, but I have to tell her that £177 million of that comes from higher energy trading income from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority’s programme. So better performance by one of our non-departmental bodies is producing more money for the Treasury—I would have thought that she would have welcomed that.

Amber Rudd: The residents of Hastings and Rye are looking forward to cheaper energy bills following the implementation of the green deal. What plans does the Minister have to make sure that residents of social housing also get the benefit of that? May I also invite him, as Minister and constituency neighbour, to come to Rye to share that information with AmicusHorizon?

Gregory Barker: I congratulate my hon. Friend, who has taken a very close interest in this issue of how
	we are going to help the poorest people in our society access the green deal and to improve the housing stock for everyone. I can assure her that we are working very closely with both the Local Government Association, the National Housing Federation, and with individual local authorities and community groups. I would also be delighted to come across the border and have a round table meeting to see how we can drive forward the agenda in Hastings and Rye.

Alun Michael: Ministers will be aware that the Welsh landfall for an optimal Severn tidal barrage will be in my constituency. Given the need for a major increase in renewable energy and the potential for creating nearly 40,000 jobs, will Ministers provide us with some clarity on what the Government will do to promote this project?

Charles Hendry: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that a year or so ago we published a report, which had been commissioned by the previous Government, to look at the barrage proposals and the lagoon proposals. It showed that the largest of those would cost £30 billion-odd pounds, and we believe that in the current climate that is unaffordable. We know that work is being done on looking at other ways of bringing finance into that. We have said that we will keep an open mind on the proposal, but it needs to be done at a cheaper cost to consumers.

Sarah Newton: The Department has been a really good friend to the emerging deep geothermal energy industry in this country, through regional growth funding and direct support. Can the Government make that last commitment to give the industry the five renewables obligation certificates it needs as part of the review, which would enable the first commercial deep geothermal power station to be opened in my constituency?

Charles Hendry: My hon. Friend will not have to wait very long before we provide the final decisions on the renewables obligation banding review. She might also be interested to learn that I recently went to Iceland to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Icelandic Government about how we can share some of their knowledge as the world’s leading economy in geothermal power and heat, and see how that can be brought to bear to assist developments such as those in her constituency.

Gregg McClymont: Since this rather miserable Government came to power, pensioners in my constituency have seen their energy bills rise by £200. If the Government insisted that the big energy companies put those pensioners aged over 75 on the cheapest possible tariff, 5,500 pensioners in my constituency would see their bills drop by £200. Is it not time that the Government stood up for senior citizens rather than the big energy companies?

Edward Davey: I have good news to cheer up the hon. Gentleman. Under the warm home discount, 1 million of the poorest pensioners will get £130 off their bills in this financial year. Under the voluntary agreement
	negotiated by my Department and announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in April, the big six will ensure that customers who are getting the warm home discount are informed that they can move to the cheapest tariff, if they are not already on it, which will augment the benefit from the discount.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. May I remind the House that topical questions are supposed to be significantly shorter and the same goes for the replies? We will then be able to get more colleagues in.

David Mowat: Over the past few months, there has been a significant increase in the level of electricity imports, mostly cheap nuclear from France, through the interconnector. Indeed, over the past 24 hours we have imported more electricity by a factor of two than we have produced from offshore and onshore wind. That is a big policy failure and is costing us thousands of jobs. How can we address it?

Charles Hendry: I disagree with my hon. Friend, as the interconnector is an essential part of our energy security. We have seen a new interconnector introduced to Holland and a new connection is coming through to Ireland. We are exploring other aspects of the matter, too. We think that it is a fundamental part of energy security and delivering low-carbon electricity at the cheapest cost to consumers.

Graeme Morrice: What steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that energy bill standing charges do not unfairly hit the fuel poor and other low-income consumers, especially pensioners?

Edward Davey: The hon. Gentleman will know that Ofgem is undertaking a retail market review that is considering standing charges. We expect its deliberations to be published in the autumn. Given that it is an independent regulator, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that I should not pre-judge its conclusions.

Tessa Munt: Investing in a balanced mix of low-carbon energy projects has huge job creation potential. The CBI’s analysis has shown that the green economy currently supports 940,000 jobs, two thirds of which are outside London and the south-east. Does the Minister agree that that reveals how the green economy can support a balanced nationwide economic recovery?

Edward Davey: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to the work she does in her constituency to promote energy efficiency and renewables. She mentions the CBI report and it is clear that the CBI’s director-general, John Cridland, is very supportive of the Energy Bill and our attempts to increase investment in energy infrastructure, which he sees as a key part of this Government’s growth policy.

Lilian Greenwood: Under Nottingham’s decent homes programme, more than 15,000 tonnes of carbon will be saved each year. Nottingham City Homes, the local arm’s length management organisation, can use decent homes
	funding to lever in additional benefits from the green deal’s energy company obligation, but that funding remains indicative for 2013 to 2015. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Department for Communities and Local Government on decent homes funding and will he join me in praising the environmental benefits achieved by Nottingham’s “Secure Warm Modern” programme?

Gregory Barker: I would go further and praise Nottingham for a whole range of things that it is doing. It has a very progressive agenda and I look forward to visiting Nottingham in the near future to engage on how we can drive that agenda forward. I cannot comment in detail on something that is the responsibility of DCLG, that is, the decent homes programme, but I can say that we are keen for the green deal programme to leverage in all sorts of additional finance where possible. It is about not just energy efficiency but the wider sustainable regeneration of areas such as Nottingham.

Chris Heaton-Harris: The Department’s own figures suggest that in 2009, 50,000 people were put into fuel poverty because of the wind element of renewable energy. Will the Secretary of State give up-to-date figures on that?

Edward Davey: I saw the press reports that made that allegation and I am afraid that I do not agree with them at all. The press article was trying to suggest that particular amounts of money that come from consumer bills to support the renewables industry was the top bit that would push people into fuel poverty. It was a very poor analysis and we completely reject it.

Graham Stringer: The Minister failed to answer the question earlier about when shale gas would come on line, yet this source of energy would create real jobs and partially decarbonise the energy industry as well as lowering fuel bills. Why does he not get a move on?

Charles Hendry: This is not a matter purely for the Government. Companies here are exploring for shale gas and seeking to identify how much of the resource there may be. They will then need to apply for a licence, get permission from the Health and Safety Executive and get approval from the Environment Agency. A range of different bodies, in addition to local planning permission, are a vital part of the process. It may well have a role to play, but it has to be done with the strictest environmental and safety protections.

Damian Hinds: Does my hon. Friend agree that the continued growth of UK solar vindicates the approach of this Government, who keep returns attractive and make the money go further, in stark contrast to the limited ambitions and dodgy maths of a previous Secretary of State, now Leader of the Labour party?

Gregory Barker: Absolutely. We will see far, far more deployment now in the rest of the Parliament than we would have done if we had carried on with Labour’s very expensive, unfit for purpose, form of subsidy. Moreover, there is other exciting news. I am delighted that Sharp, the leading European manufacturer of solar,
	has announced that subsequent to the reforms, it will move its European manufacturing base from Germany to the UK—a real vindication of our reforms.

Derek Twigg: The Heath business and technical park in Runcorn in my constituency is one of the most important employment sites in the north-west, but the decision by SP Manweb plc to apply for a wayleave to retain electric lines on the site is putting at risk a multi-million pound investment in jobs and houses, which has been made worse by the fact that the Department will not be able to make a decision on this until well into next year. Will the Secretary of State intervene quickly to ensure that the investment does take place and is not put at more risk?

Charles Hendry: I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s comments. I am not aware that he has written to me on the subject. If he has done so, I will be very keen to talk to him to see if there are things that we can do to speed up the process, because I understand the impact that it could have on employment in his constituency.

Neil Carmichael: Does the Minister welcome the news that nearly a third of the 900,000 new jobs have come into the green economy, which is obviously underlined by the excellent news that Sharp is moving to this country from Germany?

Edward Davey: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. The House recently debated the green economy, and Members on both sides of the House gave examples from their constituencies of big investments and job creation as a result of our policies and the green economy.

Chi Onwurah: There is real concern, especially amongst small innovative companies, that the Department’s smart meter programme, which should help reduce energy bills, is behind schedule, disorganised, has no technical standards to help small companies take part and is unco-ordinated with either the smart grid programme or spectrum release. Will the Minister provide some reassurances?

Charles Hendry: Let me provide the hon. Lady with reassurances. We have sped up the programme that we inherited and brought it forward by 12 months, we have been going forward in a very collaborative approach with industry to get its buy-in to all the key decisions, and we have submitted the technical specification for European Commission approval, which is happening in two stages, with one going through now and the second shortly. We see this as a very important aspect of energy efficiency and putting consumers in power, and also for real business opportunities for large and small companies alike.

Andrew George: Energy bills are still impenetrable to many households. What progress are the Government making to ensure that energy companies improve the transparency and clarity of their domestic bills?

Edward Davey: As we said earlier, work is under way on this. Ofgem, through its retail market review, is looking at tariff simplification, which is important. As my hon. Friend will know, since becoming Secretary of State, I have been pushing the idea of collective switching and collective purchasing, and simpler bills will be a big facilitator for that.

Jessica Morden: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), I have concerns about what the Government are doing to maximise the use of UK steel in the low carbon economy and all the opportunities that that brings. I understand that the Minister’s answer was encouraging, but does he appreciate that we must get this right now, because the deteriorating market for steel is impacting on workers in my constituency today?

Charles Hendry: Let me reassure the hon. Lady that that is absolutely at the heart of what we are doing. We are determined that there will be a major industrial gain for this country from building the new low-carbon facilities, as well as some of the older type of facilities as well. We have strategies for the oil and gas sector, the nuclear sector and the renewable sector. Throughout this area we want to see real industrial gain, often bringing new employment to areas that have been hard hit for a very long time.

Peter Aldous: Following on from the CBI’s report, the New Anglia local enterprise partnership has just published its manifesto for promoting green growth over the next three years. Will the Secretary of State and his colleagues across Government work with the LEP to discuss how its manifesto can best be implemented?

Edward Davey: We are keen to hear from any LEP across the country. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and his ministerial team work closely with LEPs. Across Government we want to support their work in promoting the green economy.

Alan Whitehead: Has the Minister spoken with the developers of large-scale wind farms who have difficulties because their development periods straddle the end of the renewables obligation and the start of—if they come to pass—contracts for difference? Does he consider that the end of the RO, if that is necessary, should be in 2020, rather than 2017, in order to accommodate those problems?

Charles Hendry: We are not persuaded by that argument. We think that there needs to be a clear switchover date and are giving a long lead-in time, to 2017, so that there is certainty. Alongside that, we are giving people the choice of whether they go with the existing renewables obligation mechanism or move to the new contract for difference mechanism so that they have the best opportunity to decide what works for them in the longer term.

Olympics (Security)

Keith Vaz: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on the Olympics security situation.

Theresa May: The Government’s overriding priority is to use all resources necessary to deliver a safe and secure Olympic games. That is what the public and the House would expect. The security operation has been meticulously planned. It will be the largest and most complex security operation in this country since the second world war.
	Police plans, and those of the security and intelligence agencies, are well advanced. The success of the policing operation around the nationwide Olympic torch relay gives confidence in the robustness of police planning. Contingency planning has always been central to our security work, should any changes be needed at this late stage. The games security picture can change rapidly, so we have deliberately built in flexibility to respond to any challenge.
	As the Defence Secretary has already told the House, we had always intended to deploy 7,500 military personnel to support the venue security operation organised by the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games. These military personnel have already started to deploy to venues to support the rolling search and lock-down process between now and the start of the Olympics. They are already working alongside the police, LOCOG, the commercial security provider, G4S, and accredited volunteer staff.
	As the venue security exercise has got under way, concerns have arisen about G4S’s ability to deliver the required number of guards for all Olympics venues and within the time scales available. The Defence Secretary and I, along with other Ministers, have been constantly monitoring the situation and the security contracts over many months. In consultation with LOCOG and G4S, we have now agreed that it would be prudent to deploy additional military support to provide greater reassurance.
	I have therefore requested additional MOD support, and the Defence Secretary has authorised the deployment of a further 3,500 military personnel. That will bring the total number of military personnel supporting the safety and security of the games in a variety of roles to 17,000, including the military personnel deployed on functions wider than venue security. The chiefs of staff support an increased deployment and have confirmed that the deployment will have no adverse impact on other operations. The Government have committed £553 million for venue security and remain confident that we will deliver within that budget.
	Ministers across Government recognise the burden that this additional short-notice deployment will impose upon individual servicemen and women and their families, especially over the summer holiday season, so we will ensure that all those taking part receive their full leave entitlement, even if it has to be rescheduled, that no one is out of pocket due to cancelled personal arrangements and that all deployed personnel are appropriately supported.
	We have agreed with LOCOG that 10,000 Olympic and Paralympic tickets will be donated to the armed services via Tickets for Troops. Access for 2,000 people to spectator areas in the Mall for the Olympic cycle road races and the Olympic marathon will also be made available, as will the right to buy 2,000 Olympic park tickets. In addition, I can tell the House that a total of 7,000 tickets have now been offered to the troops for the dress rehearsals of the opening and closing ceremonies, a significant increase to recognise their extra commitment.
	I can confirm to the House that there remains no specific security threat to the games and the threat level remains unchanged, and let me reiterate that there is no question of Olympic security being compromised.
	In this country, we have the finest military personnel in the world, and they stand ready to do their duty, whatever the nation may ask. Our troops are highly skilled and highly trained, and this task is the most important facing our nation today. I know that we can rely on our troops to help deliver a safe and secure Olympic games that London, the country and the whole world can enjoy.

Keith Vaz: I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the Home Secretary for coming to the House at such short notice. I endorse the Government’s decision to provide 3,500 additional troops.
	The right hon. Lady will understand, 15 days from the start of what we all hope will still be the greatest Olympics that have ever been staged, our deep concern about reports that surfaced last Sunday, now confirmed by the Government, that there is a shortfall in the trained security officers provided by G4S.
	On Monday in the House the Home Secretary said:
	“We have been testing our plans thoroughly and are confident that our partners”—
	“our partners”—
	“will deliver a safe and secure games”.—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 9.]
	I spoke this morning to the chief executive of LOCOG, who told me that the matter surfaced, that it crystallised a fortnight ago but there had been concerns for some time, and that the decision, as the Home Secretary says, was made by all parties concerned.
	Can the Home Secretary confirm the exact date that Ministers found out about the security shortfall, and the action that she took? When was the decision made to ask the Secretary of State for Defence for these additional troops, and when did he agree to provide them? What processes were in place to monitor the situation over the period—indeed, the lifetime—of the G4S contract?
	I am very pleased with what the Home Secretary has said about the taxpayer not being inconvenienced by the situation, but will any troops have come from abroad and, therefore, be entitled to leave now because they are exhausted? It is a question not just of their being out of pocket.
	Can the Home Secretary confirm that G4S will suffer penalties as a result of this fiasco? As she knows, G4S is already the supplier of hundreds of millions of pounds worth of Government contracts, from prisons to the immigration service. Will she now look at those contracts and ensure that there is a pause before any more are awarded?
	Can the Home Secretary confirm that the Prime Minister had to cancel his appearance before the Olympic security committee this week, but that it will be rearranged? I attempted to contact the chairman of G4S this morning. Apparently he is in an emergency meeting with the MOD, the Home Office and other officials. I hope it is not another crisis meeting, with another set of changes.
	G4S has let the country down, and we have literally had to send in the troops. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that she is now satisfied that all the changes she has announced today will mean that what we hope will be the greatest games ever staged will be done securely, for the safety of visitors and the British people?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for the Government’s decision. It is absolutely right that, at this stage, when what may be a gap has opened up, we act quickly to ensure that any gap will be filled.
	The right hon. Gentleman asks about my remarks in the House on Monday, and about when the gap in the numbers from G4S was crystallised. We were receiving reassurances from G4S until very recently, and the absolute gap in numbers was crystallised finally only yesterday.
	Because we have been monitoring the situation, we had had discussions with the MOD about whether troops would be available for the contingency, should the circumstances have arisen in which that was necessary, and that is why yesterday we were able to take that decision, having prudently had those discussions and made those contingency arrangements.
	As I said in my response to this urgent question, we have been monitoring: monitoring has been taking place throughout the contract process; and we have obviously been testing and challenging the assurances that we have been receiving from G4S.
	It is the case that some troops who are now within that 3,500 number will be from abroad, and some will have returned from recent operations.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about penalties for G4S. LOCOG signed the contract with G4S, and I understand that there are penalties within that contract. It will be for LOCOG to deal with that matter with G4S. He said that the Prime Minister had been forced to cancel the Olympic security board meeting this week, but the Prime Minister was not forced to do that.
	What is absolutely essential is that when the Government identified that a need was there, we acted to ensure that we covered that requirement so that we can ensure that we have the venue security and general security for the games that we all want.

James Clappison: I welcome the decisive action that my right hon. Friend has taken in safeguarding security for the Olympics. I particularly welcome what she said about the armed forces; the country would appreciate it if the powers that be were as generous as possible to members of the armed forces and their families in respect of receiving tickets and hospitality for the Olympic games.
	On the further, separate point about G4S that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has just chosen to make, is it not the case that G4S received
	large-scale contracts from the Government and was considered fit to receive such contracts before May 2010, for example?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right on that point. On his earlier point about generosity to the armed forces, I should say that the Secretary of State for Defence has taken that very seriously. He has been ensuring that we will be generous to those who are taking on the responsibility. As I outlined in my remarks, a number of arrangements are being made to cover that, particularly if members of the armed forces have personal arrangements, to make sure that they are not out of pocket and that they will get the leave to which they are entitled.

Yvette Cooper: Everyone wants us to have a safe and successful Olympics, and we support the Home Secretary’s decision to bring in an extra military support in the circumstances. We also recognise that, given the scale of the Olympic challenge, no one can guarantee that everything will go smoothly.
	However, I have to say to the Home Secretary that this really looks like another huge Home Office shambles. On Monday, she was asked specifically about recruitment at G4S. She said:
	“The Home Office has put in place a number of assurance processes to ensure that we have effective and robust scrutiny of venue security planning. We have been testing our plans thoroughly and are confident that our partners will deliver a safe and secure games”—[Official Report, 9 July 2012; Vol. 548, c. 9.]
	She was so confident that two days later she called in the troops. What does it say about the Home Secretary’s assurance process that it took until two weeks before the games to realise that 3,500 military additional personnel would be needed? G4S is not just a few volunteers short—we are talking about 3,500 people from a contract to provide 10,000 staff and 6,000 volunteers. That is a breach of contract of about 25%. Why did it take until lock-down to realise what was going on?
	The Minister responsible for security, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), told the “Today” programme this morning:
	“We’ve obviously been monitoring the progress and been challenging them, asking the questions, really going down, kicking the tyres and doing all those sorts of things.”
	Well, it was not very effective—was it?—if, with just 15 days to go, we could be in this situation. Can the Home Secretary tell us again what will happen to the G4S contract? Has she even asked those questions to make sure that the security budget is not affected and that the taxpayer does not end up out of pocket?
	Of course we pay tribute to our military, who I am sure will do an excellent job, but what does it say about the Home Office that there are still two-hour queues at Heathrow, that borders staff sacked last year are being re-recruited, that the borders force is becoming a borders farce, and that the dynamic duo of the security Minister and the Minister for Immigration were tripping up this morning in the “Today” programme studios to defend themselves on different aspects of Home Office incompetence?
	Everyone is working really hard to make the games a success and show the world the best of British. The Home Office is making that harder, not easier. I say to
	the Home Secretary: please get the security and border problems sorted out and stop letting everybody else down.

Theresa May: I think that I can deal swiftly with the right hon. Lady’s response. First, I thank her for her support for the decision. Secondly, I should say that it is not a shambles when the Government take the action necessary to ensure that we are providing the venue security. Troops have always been part of the provision of venue security and we are taking the action that ensures that we have the confidence that the numbers will be there. She should have listened to the answer I gave to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) about the timetable in relation to the G4S contract. It is a LOCOG contract, and it is for LOCOG to exercise the penalties within it.
	As for the right hon. Lady’s reference to my hon. Friends the security Minister and the Minister for Immigration, I am sure that if neither of them had been speaking publicly about these issues today she would have complained about that as well. I am slightly sorry that she has not taken the approach of her noble Friend, Lord West, who has said, “I’m not trying to indulge in a blame game regarding Governments.” It is a pity that she could not, like him, be a bit more statesmanlike.

Don Foster: Safety and security is of paramount importance, and we should welcome the willingness of our armed forces to take on these additional responsibilities. Will the Home Secretary assure us that the additional troops will be provided with the necessary training, particularly for specialist tasks such as scanning? If G4S can bring additional people in, may we have an assurance that troop numbers will be reduced over time?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for those questions. Yes, I can absolutely give the assurance that the training will be provided. We will of course want to ensure that at all times we have the correct number and the correct mix of people available to undertake venue security duties. I assure him that the troops will be used for tasks for which they have been fully trained.

Jack Straw: Will the Home Secretary be more precise about the numbers? We know that 3,500 additional troops are being brought in. What was the total number of trained staff for whom G4S was contracted, and what is the shortfall in numbers?

Theresa May: The overall number that we were looking for was 23,700, which includes 7,500 troops. The right hon. Gentleman can do the maths for himself in terms of the total numbers and make-up of staff, who include volunteers, students, and the G4S staff themselves. G4S undertook the training of all those elements. G4S has said that it is not able to provide the balance of 16,000 to 17,000 guards, and therefore we have taken the step of bringing in the 3,500 military personnel. That is absolutely what one would expect a Government to do in these circumstances, and if he were in government, he would be doing exactly the same thing.

Nicholas Soames: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on the prompt way in which she has dealt with this difficulty? Will she confirm that members of the Territorial Army based around London would be extremely serviceable on this occasion and would, I am sure, be very pleased to be called up to help in these matters? Will she assure us that all the security and immigration matters at Heathrow have been attended to, so that there is the ability to get people swiftly through and it will be a flawless operation?

Theresa May: I thank my right hon. Friend for his very appropriate reference to the reserves, who are indeed being used. We welcome the work done by people who willingly give up their time to the Territorial Army, and they will be part of the troop deployment that will be taking place for the security of the Olympics. On Sunday, the contingency arrangements for the Olympics period will kick in at Heathrow, with the extra numbers of staff over and above any who have already gone in, and there will be a policy of ensuring that all desks are manned at peak times. That will deal with the issue he raised.

David Blunkett: I share the view that has been expressed about the military. In February 2003, when there was a very serious security threat to Heathrow, we discovered that the deployment and demeanour of the military was crucial in avoiding turning security into a feeling of insecurity. Given the deployment of missiles on residential property and the numbers of military now being deployed, will the Home Secretary talk to LOCOG to ensure that we do not have a repeat of a situation where visitors to this country feel genuinely worried?

Theresa May: I think that the opposite is the case. Obviously, we want people who are coming to the Olympics to feel that they are coming to an event that is about sport and not to think that the prime issue that they are facing is security. All the evidence so far is that the troops who are already at Olympic venues are welcomed, that their demeanour is entirely appropriate, and that they provide a degree of reassurance that is welcome to the public.

Jane Ellison: The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee has rightly asked an important question this morning and I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s reassurances. Does she share my feeling that the sour attitude and political point scoring from the Labour Front Bench will not be forgotten by Londoners if it continues?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend, as a London Member of Parliament, has made her point very appropriately and very well. I say to the Opposition that what Londoners and people across the country want is for us all to be behind the Olympics and to do what we need to do to ensure that it is a great event for the United Kingdom.

David Winnick: Despite all the excuses that are being made, does the Home Secretary recognise that people will see what The  Daily  Telegraph has written about a security farce as perfectly justified? What is so difficult to understand is that, with all the
	time that has been available to prepare for the Olympics, we now have this near-crisis with just 15 days to go. Why should the country be let down by the Home Secretary and by the failure to plan properly? Why should Britain become an international embarrassment as a result of her incompetence?

Theresa May: The aspect of the hon. Gentleman’s question that most strikes me is the fact that he reads The Daily Telegraph. The Home Office has ensured that contingency arrangements are in place throughout this period. We have monitored the progress and looked for reassurances from LOCOG, whose contract it is with G4S, and from G4S. As I said in answer to the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the gap in numbers that has been identified, which requires us to employ these 3,500 troops on venue security, was crystallised only yesterday.

Penny Mordaunt: I draw the attention of the House to my interest as a member of the Royal Navy Reserve. This situation shows how reliant we are on our armed forces. We must never take them for granted. I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcements about compensation and access to events, which I think will be very much appreciated. Will she reassure the House that there will be enough time and budget to ensure that, whether they are regulars or reservists, people are properly trained?

Theresa May: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. She is right that we would not want to put our military personnel into these circumstances without their having been trained, because they are not usually required to undertake some of these duties. The training will be there.

Alun Michael: It is clearly in the Home Secretary’s job description to look unruffled when faced with a shambles, and she is getting plenty of practice. Very simply, if the operation was planned as meticulously and monitored as carefully as she claims, how did it go so badly wrong?

Theresa May: As I have said, and as the right hon. Gentleman has repeated, we have been monitoring this situation, but, of course, it is only at this point, when the scheduling of staff for the Olympic games comes through fully, that these sorts of issues start to arise. It is perfectly reasonable for the Government to have been talking to G4S and LOCOG throughout this period, which we have been doing. We have ensured that contingency arrangements are in place in case there are any difficulties. When we were advised yesterday that the guarantee was not there of the numbers that we needed, we did what was absolutely right and appropriate: we said that we needed to put extra contingency arrangements in place and we did so.

John Glen: It seems that the Government have received verbal assurances from G4S, but not verifiable recruitment plans and progress reports. What wider lessons does this episode give the Government on how to handle such situations in future?

Theresa May: We have obviously had discussions with LOCOG and G4S about their plans for the numbers that they were bringing on board at any particular point
	in time. It has become clear to G4S that it cannot guarantee the numbers that it had previously given us reassurances about. It is in those circumstances that we have made the contingency arrangements.

Kate Hoey: I welcome the use of extra servicemen and women at our Olympics. The three Olympic games that I have attended have had many representatives of the armed forces, who do a brilliant job. Perhaps they should have been involved from the beginning and the money that has gone to this security force could have gone to them to start with. Can we please remember that this is a sporting event? I worry that we are going so over the top on the security aspect that people have forgotten that this is about countries competing in sporting endeavours in a friendly way.

Theresa May: The hon. Lady makes an extremely valid point. This is a sporting event. We want people to come to London 2012 and enjoy it as a sporting event. We want them to feel safe and secure while they are doing that. That is why it is appropriate for us to ensure that the venue security arrangements are right. She referred to the military being engaged in other Olympic games. The military in the UK provides security at other sporting events, such as Wimbledon, so it is not unusual. What is different is the scale of this event and, therefore, the scale of the venue security that has to be provided.

Nick de Bois: I commend the Home Secretary on her swift action. I can imagine the furore on the Opposition Benches had she not taken such action. On the penalty clauses between LOCOG and G4S, in my experience of business, such clauses are easily wriggled out of. I urge her to press LOCOG to publish the details of any successful rebate that it gets as a result of these apparent errors.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right that in previous examples, penalty clauses have not operated as well as they should have done. This is a matter for LOCOG to deal with, along with G4S. Everybody accepts that there are penalty clauses in the contract. That is obviously being looked at carefully. I will ensure that LOCOG is aware of his suggestion.

Margaret Hodge: I join others in congratulating the armed services on identifying personnel so swiftly and thank the 3,000 volunteers who will provide venue security. The Public Accounts Committee has looked at the issue of venue security a number of times. Does the Home Secretary accept that her Department and LOCOG did not identify early enough the numbers that would be sufficient? The contract with G4S was increased from £282 million at the time of the spending review to £553 million a few months later in December 2011. That suggests insufficient planning. Her officials, together with LOCOG officials, gave assurances to my Committee that they would recruit sufficient numbers perfectly adequately. Why did her officials give those assurances when it has now become so chaotic?

Theresa May: On the right hon. Lady’s second point, the assurances were given on the basis of the discussions that were taking place with the contracted providers. At that stage, the contracted providers were clear that they
	were going to be able to provide the numbers that they were contracted to provide. As I have explained, the gap that has opened up was only finally crystallised yesterday when the request came through and we accepted that there was a need to undertake further contingency arrangements.
	On the right hon. Lady’s first question, it was never the case that it would be possible, two or three years out, to identify absolutely every requirement of venue security. It was possible to identify the full requirements for venue security only at the point when all the venues had been determined by LOCOG, the appropriate level of security at the venues had been determined and the programme of events had been scheduled. It was at that point that the numbers necessary for security were finally determined.

Bob Russell: I pay tribute to all members of Her Majesty’s armed forces who will provide security at the Olympic games, particularly those from the Colchester garrison. Is it not fortunate that we still have an Army large enough to deploy these numbers? I put it to the Home Secretary in respect of G4S that no public contracts funded by UK taxpayers should go to a company that is aiding and abetting the state of Israel with illegal activities in the west bank.

Theresa May: I will not go down the route that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tempt me down on a matter that is more appropriate to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I would say that G4S is one of the largest security providers in the world, so it was natural to look to exactly such a company for venue security.

John McDonnell: Security begins at Heathrow. For months, the Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents border control staff, has been warning the Government that there are too few staff. BAA wrote to the Government saying that the queues were caused by too few staff, and the former head of border control has said that the temporary staff who have been brought in are totally inadequately trained to meet security needs. I am worried not just about the embarrassment caused to this country by passengers who are coming for the Olympics spending more time in the queues than watching the Olympics, but about the security of the staff working at Heathrow, many of them my constituents. Does the Home Secretary not understand that her statement will be seen as utterly complacent about what is really needed at Heathrow airport?

Theresa May: I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the Government’s approach to border security. When we identified that security checks had been relaxed and put to one side on many occasions between 2007 and 2011, we decided that as the job of the border forces is about border security, we would tighten up that security.

Philip Hollobone: In failing to honour its contract, G4S has clearly let the whole country down. As a result of the Home Secretary’s swift and correct decision today, Britain will have more troops dedicated to venue security than deployed to Afghanistan.
	It is not enough to rely on penalty clauses in LOCOG’s contract with G4S. My constituents would want the Home Secretary and the Government to say that G4S should have no more Government contracts whatever until it pays every last penny of the additional costs of the extra 3,500 troops.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend refers to the number of troops working on venue security, but of course the overall number of troops that I cited includes those who will be involved in specialist support and other operations as well.
	A number of right hon. and hon. Members have made comments about G4S and its contract, but it is still contracted to LOCOG as a partner to produce a significant number of personnel for venue security. We want to work with it, and we want LOCOG to work with it, to ensure that it can deliver the number to which it has now committed.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The whole House accepts the Home Secretary’s assurances about the great role that the armed services will play in the Olympics. Does she recognise, however, that the real casualties are the thousands of people who were looking for employment and volunteering opportunities as part of the legacy of the games? This morning, the airwaves were full of them complaining and expressing their frustration. Does she recognise that frustration, and can she say anything to them today?

Theresa May: We continue to support the work that G4S is doing to bring in the number of people that it has now said it will be able to supply. At the point when G4S and LOCOG identified that, in their estimation, there would be a gap in the number of people such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned coming forward to work in security jobs at the various Olympic venues, it was absolutely right that the Government said that we would not just risk what might happen. We decided that we would ensure venue security, and that is exactly what we have done.

Andrew Murrison: Once again, our regular and reserve forces are about to prove that they are indeed the nation’s flexible friend, but they must not be taken for granted, and it is good to hear that the Home Secretary is not doing that. There will be big cash and opportunity costs for the Ministry of Defence budget as a result of all this. What structures exist to ensure that any clawback from G4S is hypothecated to the MOD?

Theresa May: I assure my hon. Friend that discussions are taking place among Departments about the funding. The funding will not reside with the MOD. The matter of penalties is one between LOCOG and G4S, but the Government will discuss it with them. As he rightly says, if the required numbers have not been delivered, the financial penalty proceeds should revert to the Government to make extra money available.

Meg Hillier: I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) about the number of people, including in my constituency,
	who would have loved to have had one of the 12,000 jobs that are now going not to security staff but to the armed forces.
	The Home Secretary has been in her post for two years and two months. In that time she has had three security Ministers, and Olympic security needs have more than doubled. The Home Office knew that there was a problem in May 2010. When did she know there was a problem, and why did not she or one of her three security Ministers ask LOCOG more detailed questions about its poor forward planning?

Theresa May: If I may just correct the hon. Lady on one fact: there have not been three security Ministers over the past two years and two months.

David Hanson: Pauline Neville-Jones, Angela Browning and the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire).

Theresa May: No, Baroness Neville-Jones was the first security Minister, and my hon. Friend is the second. Perhaps the shadow Home Office team could pay a little more attention to what happens with Ministers—I know that there are more of them shadowing us than there are Ministers.
	The Home Office and others have examined the contract and worked with LOCOG and G4S throughout the period in question to ensure that the arrangements that they had in place were correct. Only yesterday did it become clear that G4S felt it was not able to provide the full number of personnel that it was contracted to provide. I hope the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will agree that, in those circumstances, it was entirely right for the Government to act.

David Nuttall: As it is now more than seven years since the UK won the right to host the Olympic games, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the fact that we are having to bring in the Army with the opening ceremony just 15 days away must mean that someone in either LOCOG or G4S is utterly incompetent?

Theresa May: As I have explained in answer to a number of questions, plans have been put forward and changed over those years, and contingency arrangements were put in place. It was entirely right and proper for the Government to act in this appropriate and contingent manner when it became clear that the security provider contracted to LOCOG could not reassure us that it could provide the full number of personnel.

Pat McFadden: What will the Home Secretary do about terror suspect CF, who is reported to have visited the Olympic site five times and is believed by the court to have undergone terrorist training in Somalia? Does she accept that CF’s ability to be in London at all is a direct result of her legislation removing the power to relocate such suspects away from London or other parts of the country? That legislation is complacent, wrong-headed and dangerous. Will she revisit the issue on the basis that it is not the terror laws that threaten liberty but the intent of those who would seek to kill and maim innocent people?

Theresa May: It is certainly the case that the threat to the UK is the intent of those who wish to kill or maim fellow citizens. I answered a question on this matter in Home Office questions on Monday, and it is not possible for me to go into considerable detail of a case that is before the courts. However, the right hon. Gentleman is incorrect in some of the facts that he has stated. The situation is that the police identified CF travelling through the Olympic park area, and the arrangements that we have put in place enabled that identification to take place. That is different from what he said.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. I hope the House will take note of what the Home Secretary has said. That was a perfectly proper question and answer, but if the specific case is sub judice, which I believe to be so, we should not seek to press the Home Secretary on the details of it.

Mark Pawsey: Will the Home Secretary remind us when the contract with G4S was entered into? Under its terms, will the company cover the cost of the welcome commitment to ensure that none of the additional armed forces involved in the Olympics will be in any way out of pocket?

Theresa May: The contract was entered into by LOCOG in December 2010. As has been indicated, the Ministry of Defence is making arrangements for troops. Payments will be made so that no troops are out of pocket as a result of this requirement on them, and arrangements will be made to ensure they can have the leave to which they are entitled. The Government will speak to LOCOG about the penalties available in the G4S contract. The contract is between LOCOG and G4S, but I can assure my hon. Friend that we intend to ensure we do not pay sums of money that we should not pay when penalties can be used to claw the money back.

John Spellar: Have delays in Criminal Records Bureau checks, particularly by the Metropolitan police, partly caused the problem? Either officials and Ministers have been lied to by G4S, or they have not been on top of the job. Which is it?

Theresa May: I can confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that, as far as I am aware, the numbers were not affected by the accreditation system process for checks on individuals. There are various parts to the accreditation system. There is also a role for LOCOG in working with G4S in inputting information into the system and in ensuring that cards are available for those who are accredited.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. This is an extremely important matter in which there is a lot of interest. I would like to accommodate that interest among colleagues, but we have an important statement from the Foreign Secretary, business questions and other business to follow, and therefore I must appeal for short questions and short answers.

Helen Grant: Does the Secretary of State agree that our fantastic forces’ stepping in at short notice to assist with security shows how vital they are?

Theresa May: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Our troops do a fantastic job for us in so many ways. That they are able to step in at this stage to undertake this work and to provide reassurance to everybody coming to the games is yet another example of what a great military we have.

Simon Danczuk: G4S gets millions of pounds from the taxpayer to deliver the Work programme to reduce the unemployment created by the Government. At the same time, it gets millions of pounds to recruit security guards for the Olympics. Why could G4S not marry up those two initiatives?

Theresa May: G4S was responsible for identifying where it was to recruit individuals from. I am confident that it has been looking to recruit people who have been unemployed, alongside various other people.

Robert Halfon: Will my right hon. Friend review the use of private companies at all for state events such as the Olympics?

Theresa May: Given the numbers necessary for venue security for the Olympics, it was entirely right of LOCOG to look at working with a private sector contractor as large as G4S, as I have said. It was entirely appropriate for LOCOG to do that. Frankly, it would not be right to say that we should not use private sector contractors for venue security—they are used in a number of such events very effectively. I remind my hon. Friend that G4S will provide venue security personnel for the Olympic games.

Kevin Brennan: The Home Secretary will know that hundreds of thousands of people will attend Olympic events in Cardiff. My office received a number of calls this morning from constituents who did the course and got the necessary accreditation, but who will not have a job owing to the use of the Army. One constituent passed the course, but G4S has not yet sent the certificate of accreditation. The right hon. Lady said, quite rightly, that she will help the armed forces with extra tickets, so how about compensation for those people who wanted a job and went through the course and who are now denied the opportunity of a job in the Olympics?

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman makes an assumption that he cannot make. Some of those who went through accreditation will be used by G4S, which will still provide a significant number of venue security personnel for the games. Security personnel will be drawn from those whom G4S has trained and who have been accredited.

Bob Blackman: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s swift and decisive action and thank the Government for delivering the games on time and within budget. Will she confirm that there will be no extra requirements on the Metropolitan police? If there
	are such requirements, will there be similar gestures in the form of tickets for relatives of police whose leave is cancelled?

Theresa May: Some arrangements have already been made in relation to the Metropolitan police—

Jeremy Hunt: Thanks to the Culture Secretary.

Theresa May: I was about to come on to that. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) makes the point that all the Olympic venues are being delivered on time and within budget. I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport and my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and the Olympics, which built on work done by the previous Government—Labour was in government when the bid was won, and they did a lot of Olympics planning work. We should accept that both parties take responsibility for the Olympics and hope that everybody will enjoy a fantastic games.

Gregg McClymont: When I first raised this issue with the Home Secretary on Monday, she refused to confirm the size of the shortfall, or indeed whether G4S had a shortfall in its security training. Will she say specifically what the size of the shortfall in G4S security trained staff is, 15 days before the Olympics start?

Theresa May: G4S has been training a significant number of staff—over and above the numbers it intended to provide. We do not know whether it can guarantee or reassure us that all those staff will be available for the Olympic games. It was on that basis that we decided to make contingency arrangements. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s question on Monday, I refer him to the answer I have given on a number of occasions, but which I first gave to the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who asked this urgent question: the fact that there was a gap of this size and that this contingency was required crystallised, and the request was made, yesterday.

Sarah Newton: I had the privilege of sailing along the Thames on HMS Ocean when she took up her position to provide security for events at venues all over London. Does my right hon. Friend share my belief that the presence of the Navy in London will be reassuring to all Londoners and volunteers, who are coming from Cornwall and all over the UK to help to make this the best ever Olympics?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is right to remind us that, although we tend to use the term “troops”, the security contribution is being made by our armed forces as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary has laid a written ministerial statement today that refers not only to HMS Ocean and other Royal Navy assets, but to the important role that the Royal Air Force will play in ensuring our security.

Rushanara Ali: As an Olympic host borough, my constituency is not hosting any events, but it is host to the surface-to-air missiles on residential blocks. There are already concerns about the
	heavy military presence. Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that proper safeguards will be in place? Will the military work closely with the community to provide sensitive security, so that people feel they will not be targeted? It is welcome that the military is stepping in to address this failure, sensitive and appropriate treatment is needed.

Theresa May: I can reassure the hon. Lady. She will know that the Ministry of Defence and the military have made every effort to work with local residents, local residents’ groups and local authorities in the areas where the ground-based air defence will be situated. That will ensure that that layer of security for the Olympic games can be delivered safely and appropriately, and in conjunction with local residents.

David Morris: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her swift and decisive action in dealing with this matter. Will she confirm that the G4S contract is with LOCOG and not the Home Office, and that the previous Government procured that mixed arrangement?

Theresa May: The contract is indeed between LOCOG and G4S and not between the Home Office and G4S. It is therefore LOCOG’s responsibility to deal with the contract and to ensure that it contains the right penalties and so forth. As I have said, discussion took place for some time, but LOCOG finally signed the contract in December 2010. It had obviously discussed the mix with potential providers for some time prior to that.

Heidi Alexander: Some of my constituents in Blackheath will have to live with Rapier missiles located metres from their home during the Olympics. Does the Home Secretary recognise that this latest fiasco with G4S undermines pubic confidence in the planning and preparation for the Olympics, and what assurances can she give me that the same lax approach has not been taken to other security arrangements?

Theresa May: This is not a lax approach; it is about the Government ensuring that we have the right approach to security and that we step in when the necessity arises. I hope that the hon. Lady will reflect carefully on the words she used today, however, because I can assure her that in providing this and other layers of security, particularly the Rapier missiles, the military are certainly not lax in their approach. They deal with these matters appropriately and are working with local residents, who can have every confidence in our armed forces.

Harriett Baldwin: G4S has had years to prepare for this event and has been paid millions of pounds, and according to the International Labour Organisation, 230,000 young people in this country are seeking part-time work to go with their studies, so the timing should have been perfect. What does the Home Secretary think has gone wrong with the labour market and G4S that it has been so completely incompetent at finding people to do these jobs?

Theresa May: G4S will still be providing a significant number of venue security personnel drawn from a variety of sources to provide security at the Olympic games. We
	will continue to work with the company. Obviously it recently identified problems with providing the complete number of personnel it was contracted to provide, but we will continue to work with it because it will still play a significant role in the security of the Olympic games.

Alison Seabeck: We have heard across the House concerns about pressures on border security and wider airport security, so will the Home Secretary say what discussions she has had with the Ministry of Defence? Has she had confirmation from the MOD that it can provide any additional troops that might be required for a contingency plan to her existing contingency plan, and will any of those troops be coming from units abolished last week?

Theresa May: I can ensure the hon. Lady that we have had significant discussions with the MOD about the contingency arrangements, but, as I said in my initial answer, the number of troops includes those on specialists operations as well as those providing venue security. A number of contingency arrangements remain in the plans, however, because we obviously recognise the need to continue to plan for other circumstances. That is why we will have been talking to the MOD. I can assure her that contingency arrangements remain.

Dan Rogerson: A retired police officer from my constituency travelled to Cardiff in early April to be interviewed and offered a job by G4S. As of last week, he was still contacting it to find out whether he had a job. Will the Home Secretary advise police authorities and, in due course, police and crime commissioners to steer clear of this shower and stick with their own support staff and police officers?

Theresa May: Police forces up and down the country have been working with private sector contractors for a number of years now. For example, when I visited Maidenhead custody suite, Reliance was working alongside the police officers and others. Indeed, it was the previous Labour Government who enabled forces to bring in private sector contractors to undertake detention and escort duties, which had previously only been done by police officers.

Kerry McCarthy: Given that the Home Secretary has been caught out by her complacency towards this contract, has she given her personal attention to concerns raised with her by the noble Lord Prescott, among others, about the fire marshals contract that LOCOG has awarded to Close Protection UK? Does she think that company fit and proper to run those services, and does she have confidence in its ability to do so?

Theresa May: The premise on which the hon. Lady asks her question is one I utterly reject. There is no complacency in Government. Had there been, we would not have announced the decision to bring in the contingency plan.

Peter Bone: I am sure that the whole House will thank the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) for bringing such an important urgent question before us, and the Home Secretary for answering personally and not pushing it
	off to a junior Minister. Will she say whether what has been announced is the maximum number of troops being deployed? Would she hesitate to increase the number, if security was at risk?

Theresa May: As I said in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), we are clear that we still have some contingency in place, so were there any security considerations, we could draw on that as well. We have ensured, and will continue to ensure, that further contingency arrangements are in place.

Balance of Competences

William Hague: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the review of the balance of competences of the EU as it affects the United Kingdom.
	Membership of the EU is in the UK’s national interests. The Government are committed to playing a leading role in the EU and protecting the UK’s national democracy, but the EU needs to reform to meet the challenges of competitiveness, a stable eurozone and greater democratic legitimacy. The crisis in the eurozone will almost certainly mean great changes for the European Union over the course of this decade. We understand the case for eurozone countries to take steps towards closer fiscal and economic integration as a logical consequence of monetary union. Given the UK’s place outside the euro, it is right that we have said we will not be part of that closer integration. We support the existence already of multiple forms of EU membership. This flexibility is in the interest of both the EU and UK. The EU is not and should not become a matter of everything or nothing.
	As the European Union continues to develop, however, we need to be absolutely clear when it is most appropriate to take decisions at the national or local level—closer to the people affected—and in other cases when it is best to take action at the EU or global level. It would be rash to predict with certainty how the eurozone crisis will end, what solutions will be agreed upon and found to be workable and sustainable, and what choices other countries will make. Until we have a better idea of the answer to those questions, we will not know the decisions that all EU countries will be facing.
	The crisis in the eurozone has intensified the debate in every country on the future of Europe, and there is no exception to that here. Equally, it is essential for the long-term success of any institution that its members are vigilant in reforming it so that it remains modern, effective, efficient and legitimate. The EU is no exception to that, either, but our national debate and the broader European debate must be thorough and informed.
	Today, I have published a Command Paper that sets out in detail how we will deliver our undertaking in the coalition programme for government to
	“examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences”.
	The review will be an audit of what the EU does and how it affects us in the United Kingdom. It will look at where competence lies, how the EU’s competences, whether exclusive, shared or supporting, are used and what that means for our national interest. These are issues that affect all EU member states and could have a bearing on the future shape of the EU as a whole.
	The review will be a valuable exercise for deepening understanding in Britain of the nature of our relationship with the European Union and how it has evolved over time, and will provide a constructive and serious British contribution to the public debate across Europe about how the EU can be reformed, modernised and improved. The review will be taken forward in a comprehensive and analytical way, jointly co-ordinated by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Cabinet Office, and the Minister for Europe and I will answer to Parliament for it.
	Government Departments will undertake the review for the areas of EU competence for which they are responsible. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be responsible for conducting the review on the EU’s competence on fisheries, and will be jointly responsible with the Department of Energy and Climate Change for the EU’s competence on the environment. The review will be an outward-facing exercise, both domestically and internationally, and Departments will be tasked with consulting and inviting evidence from everyone with a knowledge of and interest in the exercise of the EU’s competences, including not only Committees of Parliament and the devolved Administrations but businesses, civil society, other interested parties and individuals with expertise in and experience of each area.
	We will be as interested to hear from car manufacturers about EU product standards as from non-governmental organisations about environmental policies or security experts about combating organised crime. We will also invite our European and G20 partners, as well as the EU institutions and other international bodies, to contribute evidence if they wish. The review should be seen as a necessary and positive part of reforming Europe. Unless there is a good reason to the contrary, we expect to make all evidence submitted publicly available.
	To do justice to the complexity of the issues and the interests at stake, it will be important to allow enough time for this process to cover the necessary ground. Departments will begin substantive consultation this autumn, and reports informed by evidence received on individual areas of competence will be published as the review progresses. The review will conclude in 2014.
	The end result will be the most thorough and detailed analysis possible of what the exercise of the EU’s powers does and what it means for the United Kingdom. The review will present the evidence and analysis, and of course it will be for political parties to decide on their own policy recommendations. Such a comprehensive piece of work has never been undertaken before, but it is long overdue. It will ensure that our national debate is grounded in knowledge of the facts and it will be a valuable aid for policy makers in the future. Of course, this country is not alone in giving thought to the future evolution of the EU. Work is also being undertaken by, for example, my colleague the German Foreign Minister, Guido Westerwelle, and a number of my EU colleagues on the future of Europe. Our exercise will inform that wider debate.
	With the European Union Act 2011, this coalition Government have already made an historic change to how we handle EU matters in this country, with new powers for Parliament and a referendum lock, so that no future treaty change that transfers powers from the UK to the EU can happen without the express consent of the British people. The work that I am announcing today will help to inform decisions on Britain’s future path in Europe. It is not a consultation about disengaging or withdrawing from the EU. The coalition Government’s policy on Europe has not changed. We remain committed to our membership of the EU and to a strong and stable Europe. [ Interruption. ] I am smiling: I am amused by one of my hon. Friends behind me. I also believe that the EU’s future lies in continued variable geometry, in different layers of integration. Britain will choose not to take part in some layers, such as Schengen or the euro,
	but will continue to play a leading part in completing the single market, championing free trade and enlargement, as well as in foreign policy and new areas, such as the unitary patent, which benefits British business.
	It is my view, as it is the Prime Minister’s, that in future we must take the opportunities for Britain to shape its relationship with Europe in ways that advance our national interest in free trade, open markets and co-operation. That should involve less cost, less bureaucracy and less meddling in the issues that belong to nation states. This analytical exercise will help to inform political parties and the British public, as they consider how the United Kingdom’s democracy, prosperity and security are best advanced in Europe—and in the world at large —and what kind of Europe it should become.

Douglas Alexander: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his remarks today and for advance sight of the statement.
	The Opposition have no objection to a proper, thorough and factual analysis of what the EU does and how it affects us in the United Kingdom, and we welcome the involvement of a wide range of external stakeholders in the exercise announced today. We are also clear, however, that we support a future for Britain within the EU. To cut ourselves off from a market of 500 million customers would imply not just that we had lost faith in Europe, but that we had lost faith in the ability of British companies to out-compete their European rivals. In an era of billion-person countries and trillion-pound economies, we need to find ways to amplify Britain’s voice on the world stage. Where we have shared goals—from climate change negotiations to tackling cross-border crime and human trafficking—working together in Europe makes global agreements more likely.
	However, committed as we are to a future within Europe, we also recognise the need for reform of Europe. The Foreign Secretary made only passing reference today to the eurozone crisis, which is still afflicting Europe, so in many ways this was a curiously contextless and rather ahistorical statement, the announcement of which, I fear, owed more to enduring political problems than to immediate policy challenges. Let us remember that President Van Rompuy stated at the European Council just a couple of weeks ago that his plan was to
	“submit to the December 2012 European Council detailed proposals for a stage-based process towards a genuine Economic and Monetary Union”.
	Given that that timetable is much shorter than the one the Foreign Secretary has set out today for full publication of the internal Government audit, will he confirm that the work initiated today will not be completed and so will not inform the Government’s negotiating position in the critical weeks and months ahead? Given the broad terms of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, will he take the opportunity of his reply to set out more clearly to the House what the Government’s specific negotiating objectives are in the crucial six months ahead?
	Every Member of the House knows that it has not exactly been a great week for coalition unity. That is perhaps reflected in the strength of support from the Liberal Democrats Benches for the Foreign Secretary’s statement today—

Charles Kennedy: Quality, not quantity.

Douglas Alexander: I am glad to say that what is missing in quantity is indeed made up for by quality on the Liberal Democrat Benches. There are still some true and honourable Liberal Democrats, I am glad to acknowledge.
	The statement we have just heard from the Foreign Secretary will do little to create a greater sense of consensus between the coalition parties, I fear—indeed, the project is not even under way yet and already cracks are emerging. The Foreign Secretary’s Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the Deputy Prime Minister’s advisers, have reportedly been claiming that the audit is a small, low-key affair and largely a technical exercise. The Foreign Secretary today makes grand claims about the scale and scope of the project, but the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), co-chair of the Liberal Democrat parliamentary committee on international affairs, has already said:
	“The call for a long list of demands for unilateral repatriation and carve-outs is neither achievable nor desirable.”
	Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister is reported in the newspapers to have already warned that the review must not simply provide a turbulent backdrop to what is already a tense relationship between Britain and its EU partners. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister knows a thing or two about tense relationships, what assurances can the Foreign Secretary give his colleague today that that scenario will not come to pass?
	The timing of today’s announcement seems to have more to do with managing the fallout from the recent weekend of referendum shambles than with promoting Britain’s national interest, because the splits on Europe are not just between the coalition partners, but within the Conservative party. The timing seems to reflect growing rumblings from those on the Conservative Benches, many of whom will see today’s announcement as merely another step on the ramp towards an inevitable EU referendum. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Right on cue, and from the Conservative Front Bench. Let me therefore take this opportunity to ask the Foreign Secretary an important question that the Prime Minister failed to answer when he returned from last month’s EU summit. If the Conservative party were to propose a referendum premised on a package of powers being repatriated—a list that would probably be drawn from the audit announced today—but the Foreign Secretary was unable to secure such an outcome in his negotiations with members of the EU, would he contemplate advocating withdrawal in a subsequent referendum? I invite him to desist from warning about defeatism and simply to answer the question.
	In conclusion, the Prime Minister himself said recently that it is vital for our country
	“that we get our relationship with Europe right.”
	Much that determines that relationship could well be decided before the Government’s review is completed. The truth is that Britain urgently needs an effective Europe strategy, and an audit, although worth while, is not a substitute for a strategy.

William Hague: Stripping away one or two of the remarks about political parties, I think that amounted to a welcome for the announcement, as the right hon. Gentleman said that he had “no objection”. That is as
	near as we get to enthusiasm from Opposition Front Benchers on this subject, so I am grateful to him for what counts as a very strong welcome and I look forward to the Labour party submitting its evidence to the review in due course.
	Given that the right hon. Gentleman got into party political matters, let me say that it is a pity that Labour never conducted such a review. It might have helped the Labour Government when they were handing over so many competences without understanding what they were doing, without subjecting them to proper scrutiny in this House and without having a referendum. We remember—[ Interruption. ] Opposition Members are talking about particular treaties, but it was in the Nice treaty that Labour gave up the veto, which ended up with our being implicated in eurozone bail-outs under qualified majority voting—something from which this Government have now extracted the United Kingdom. The Opposition will therefore benefit enormously—and could have benefited in the past—from this kind of analysis, and I am glad that they have no objection today to its being undertaken.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about our priorities in the coming months. They are, of course, to protect the integrity of the single market. There is much talk about banking union, for instance, although different countries and different commentators mean different things by the term. We will protect the integrity of the single market, but above all, our priority is to support measures that will really bring growth to the EU. They include removing barriers to business and pursuing free trade agreements with countries such as Canada and Singapore. Much of that agenda was endorsed at the June European Council.
	The right hon. Gentleman went on to ask other questions about the future, and to suggest that the timetables were somehow amiss, but he himself said in an article in The Guardian on 1 July that
	“there are also those within the Labour party who have speculated about the possibility of a referendum… We should not decide now because the pressing priority…is…securing Britain’s interests and protecting the single market”.
	That is exactly what I have been saying. He went on:
	“And we cannot sensibly decide now because none of us can fully predict where Europe will be in a few months, never mind a few years.”
	So he does not want to answer the questions that he has just been putting to me about the longer-term future. What we do know is that, whatever happens, we will be in a better position if we have undertaken this work. It should have been undertaken before. It will inform our negotiations, improve our discussions with our partners and allow the public to be engaged in the process. Perhaps it will also lead to Governments undertaking more successful negotiations than the one that he will remember from his time as Minister for Europe, when he gave away £7 billion of our rebate. There is much to learn if we are to avoid negotiations that are so memorably, comprehensively and disastrously unsuccessful as those.

William Cash: Naturally, we all welcome this initiative. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that it is not only about specific powers but about democratic power as a whole, and that that raises the question of the sovereignty of Parliament, and of the wording of the European Communities Act 1972
	and its impact on the daily lives of the people of this country? Does he also agree that it is essential to incorporate all those questions in the review, as well as on the necessity of holding a referendum as soon as one can possibly take place?

William Hague: It will be a wide-ranging review and I am expecting a substantial contribution to it from my hon. Friend, given his knowledge of and long-standing opinions on so many aspects of EU competences. We are not restricting what people can submit in their evidence or what subjects can be addressed. The review will involve the majority of Government Departments, and, of course, all the analysis of the competences taken together will prompt major questions about how democracy works and about the appropriate levels at which decisions should be made. It is not a review about a referendum. We passed legislation last year that deals with the circumstances in which referendums will be held, and it is for each political party to explain the circumstances in which they would hold a referendum. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have recently discussed that matter, as my hon. Friend knows.

Denis MacShane: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement, but does he agree with this time line? In July 2009, he leads the Conservative party out of the family of centre right parties in Europe. In July 2012, the Prime Minister announces that he envisages a referendum, and the Foreign Secretary announces today that every green-ink EU obsessive may write to him with their ideas on what needs to be done—I hope that the Foreign Office has a big enough warehouse for all the mail. Does he agree that we will have a referendum in July 2015 or 2016, and that he will arrive at his long wished for moment, when Britain separates itself from the rest of Europe?

William Hague: When a letter in green ink arrives from an obsessive, I shall check to see whether it has come from Rotherham. I suspect that there is a fair chance that it will have done. The time line that I remember is not far off the right hon. Gentleman’s period as Minister for Europe. In 2004, the Labour Government promised a referendum on the European constitution. In 2005, they failed to hold it. In 2007, they signed the Lisbon treaty, which was very similar to that constitution, without holding a referendum. In 2008, they passed many competences away from this country without understanding what the consequences would be. Now, in 2012, we are ensuring that there will be a proper understanding of the issues. That process will no doubt be informative for the right hon. Gentleman as well.

Charles Kennedy: rose—

Hon. Members: Hooray!

Charles Kennedy: Together at last.
	This has been a memorable parliamentary week, and the Foreign Secretary is topping it off with a moment of history. He has made a statement on matters European that can, at one and the same time, be welcomed by the most arch-Eurosceptic as well as by those of us who are quite relaxed about being described as European federalists. I congratulate him on the squaring of that circle, and I wish him well in his endeavours.
	Is it significant that the word “repatriation” did not appear in the right hon. Gentleman’s statement today? Will he confirm that this calm, methodical, thorough review is going to be wisely led by civil servants and that it will not lead to policy prescriptions, which will be left to the wilder elements of individual political parties?
	On behalf of all of us who argue for a more decentralised, transparent and democratic European future, I want to say with an element of affection and nostalgia that, today, my mind goes back to the general election in which he led his party and I led mine. He led his on a Save the Pound campaign. [Hon. Members: “We were right!”] He might have been right, but he resigned as leader the day after the general election. None the less, I knew then that, one day, he would come good on Europe. Today is that day, and it would be churlish of me to deny him his moment in the Mediterranean sun.

William Hague: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for some parts of his question. I well remember that general election, in which, I have to say, I got a lot more votes than he did—but not so many that I did not want to resign the following day. I am grateful for his endorsement of the statement, following the ringing endorsement—“no objection”—from the Opposition. We now have the enthusiastic support even of the Euro-federalist members of the Liberal Democrats. This exercise will therefore begin with strong cross-party support.
	I cannot confirm that the review will be led by civil servants, because it is the job of Ministers to lead in Government, but there will of course be many assiduous officials engaged in the process and answering to Ministers, through whom the Government are accountable to Parliament. I can confirm that it will be an analytical exercise. I would not join the right hon. Gentleman in describing those in political parties who will draw policy conclusions from it as the “wilder elements”, as those parties are an important part of the functioning of our democracy. I am sure that the exercise will inform the functioning of our democracy, for which the right hon. Gentleman is a great enthusiast.

Stewart Hosie: The Joint Ministerial Committee’s memorandum of understanding on EU policy states:
	“Ministers and officials of the devolved administrations should be fully involved in discussions within the UK Government about the formulation of the UK’s policy position on all issues which touch on matters which fall within the responsibility of the devolved administrations.”
	I want to ask the Foreign Secretary two questions. First, was there any discussion at all with the devolved Administrations on the formulation of this review policy? Secondly, does he really think it adequate that Cardiff, Belfast and Edinburgh should be invited to submit evidence to the review? Does that meet the terms of the MOU, which states that the devolved Administrations should be “fully involved” in discussions on policies in which we have competence? He mentioned agriculture, fisheries and the environment: many of those matters are devolved.

William Hague: They will of course be involved in determining policy. I stress again that this is a review to establish a proper understanding of the use of EU competences and the balance of those competences with the powers
	of the United Kingdom. It will then be a matter for the political parties or the devolved Administrations to draw their policy conclusions from it. They will be involved in the way that has been set out in the memorandum. The commitment to undertake this exercise is in the coalition agreement; it is part of what the coalition Government said they would do at the beginning. That agreement is not qualified by, and cannot be diluted by, consultations with the devolved Administrations; we are empowered to do this as a coalition. Of course the devolved Administrations will be involved in determining policy, and I look forward to the representations that they make as part of the review.

Richard Ottaway: As the Foreign Secretary rightly says, Europe is changing, perhaps faster than we realise. Our relationship with Europe will change. In debating that, we must be well informed; there is no substitute in politics for being well briefed. Once the information has been analysed, however, what will be the process of drawing it together to reach a conclusion?

William Hague: As I explained in my statement, the results of this analysis will be published as we go along. There will be many opportunities for individual Departments to do that; then, during 2014, that work will be drawn together. It is then for us all—for Parliament as a whole, for the Government or for political parties—to draw their policy conclusions and base them on that. That process is up to Parliament, up to the Government at the time and up to political parties.

Mark Lazarowicz: It is important to be fully briefed, but there is plenty of expertise in government and elsewhere. Surely, this audit could be completed by the end of this year, not the end of 2014. That is why many of us are very sceptical about the motivation behind the Government’s timetable. At a time when so many crises face Europe and the world, is it not important to work out what our strategy should be on so many of those important issues, rather than simply having this interminable discussion motivated by political purposes?

William Hague: It is no good for the Opposition, who never proposed and have never undertaken such a review, now to say that it must all be done in the next few weeks, particularly when they had 13 years in government during which they could have undertaken any such exercise. When this is completed, it will of course be available for political parties to draw on in the next general election campaign and develop in whatever direction—including for the Labour party, if it manages to decide by then what policy it is going to pursue. This will not prevent us in any way from doing the work that we are doing now to protect our national interest. As I mentioned earlier, the Government have already been able to extract the United Kingdom from liability for eurozone bail-outs. We are already working hard, in consultation with the devolved Administrations, on the common fisheries policy and in trying to ensure that the exercise of competence under that policy is used much more at the national or regional level, since the common fisheries policy has been one of the most catastrophic
	and disastrous of the common policies of the European Union. We are already doing that work in any case; this review comes on top of that work and does not in any way conflict with it.

John Baron: I wish the Foreign Secretary well in trying to repatriate powers from the EU, but can he explain why he is so unwilling to commit to a referendum on our membership of the EU in the next Parliament, given that this would give us time to have an informed debate, allow the eurozone crisis to play out and fundamentally address the lack of public trust when people hear politicians making promises about matters European?

William Hague: Again, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for wishing me well on the exercise. This is not about a referendum; questions about a referendum are separate. I believe, however, that for any future public debates or a referendum of any kind about the European Union, this exercise will prove immensely useful—for the public, for Parliament and for all involved in the debate. As I say, my hon. Friend’s question is separate from what I have set out in the statement. My own view is that it is necessary to see how Europe develops, what happens during the eurozone crisis, what structure of Europe we are dealing with and what can be achieved to improve this country’s relationship with Europe before we decide on any such referendum.

Kevin Brennan: Despite our political differences, I have been friends with the Foreign Secretary for over 30 years. In that time, I cannot remember him being a Euro-enthusiast—despite his support for Maastricht. He did say in 1999:
	“The British people believe that Britain’s place lies firmly within the European Union”.
	Is that still his view?

William Hague: I was about to call the hon. Gentleman my hon. Friend because we have known each other so long. Indeed, in our days in the Oxford Union, I do not recall him being much of a Euro-enthusiast either. We used to make common cause against the Liberal Democrats, but I am skating over that for obvious reasons today. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in his place at the beginning of my statement, but I did say right at the outset, “Membership of the EU is in the UK’s national interests.” I therefore think that he will find perfect consistency between that and what I said in 1999.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on embarking on this review. May I query use of the term “competence”, which has a particular legal meaning in European law, particularly regarding fisheries competence, which is now enshrined in the Lisbon treaty? Does he not share my enthusiasm for the direction in which reform of the CFP is heading—to all intents and purposes, to devolve and power and decision making back to member states?

William Hague: I do very much, as I mentioned a few moments ago. The envisaged changes to the common fisheries policy do not amount, of course, to a change in competence—the competence remains with the European Union—but if all goes well, the member states will be
	accorded much more say in how the measures adopted by the EU are implemented. That, I think, will be immensely beneficial to fisheries policies. That illustrates how the use of competence can be changed. We could, of course, debate whether the competence of the EU in certain areas should exist at all, as well as how it should be exercised. I do not think that we have any problem in using that term, and what is happening in the fisheries policy provides a good example of what can be achieved.

Wayne David: May I press the Foreign Secretary a little on the curious timing of this exercise? To many of us, 2014 sounds suspiciously close to the next general election. Is this not all about preparation for the Tory party manifesto for that election?

William Hague: The hon. Gentleman is welcome to use this for the Labour party manifesto, and it might make it a much better informed manifesto than previous ones. I do not see any downside to that. This is a democratic country in which election campaigns are meant to be properly and fully informed. There is no disadvantage to the nation in that happening. Moreover, I intend this to be, and it will be, the most comprehensive exercise ever undertaken in this or any country about the competences of the European Union; it is important that it is fully and comprehensively undertaken. As I have said, it is odd that Opposition Members, who never thought of the exercise, never proposed it and were never in favour of it until today, now want it done at greater speed.

James Clappison: As someone present at the launch of the Save the Pound campaign on a wet Tuesday lunchtime at St Albans market—with sizeable public support, as it was market day—I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Does he agree that it should be perfectly possible, alongside this review, to take account of the public’s views and the public demand for a referendum on this subject? The public can see that the power of the European Union is growing day by day, in the exercise of its powers under its existing competences, and that our national democracy and our national sovereignty are being eroded day by day.

William Hague: Certainly, public disillusionment with the European Union is the greatest that it has ever been. We should be clear about that. I remember my hon. Friend being there on the day we launched the campaign to save the pound; let us be thankful that it was successful. We had precious little help from the other side at that time. [Interruption.] I seem to remember that a certain Prime Minister—the one before the last one—was very keen on joining the euro, so it was important to put him off, which we helped to do. A referendum, however, is a separate question from this exercise. I am not saying that this review is the only thing that will happen in our policy on the European Union. Much else will be happening over the coming months. My attitude towards a referendum is as I expressed it earlier. Discussion about it and the debate within all the political parties about what should be proposed for the future will carry on at the same time as this review.

Bernard Jenkin: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, but will he reflect on the fact that some years ago President Giscard
	himself—a wise European—said that the United Kingdom would need to negotiate for itself a special status in the European Union? I commend my right hon. Friend’s recognition of public opinion, but at least two thirds of public opinion favours a looser trade and co-operation relationship with the EU, rather than this disastrous process of integration. Will he shout from the rooftops that only a Conservative Government will deliver the renegotiation that British people want?

William Hague: Like my hon. Friend, I remember the statements of President Giscard. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make extensive contributions to the review, and I look forward to them. Although I shall of course be shouting from the rooftops about what a Conservative Government will do, I shall not be doing so from the Dispatch Box now, given that I represent a coalition Government as Foreign Secretary. However, I look forward to doing the shouting at the appropriate time.

Edward Leigh: In view of the absurd statement this week by Mr Barroso that if we left the EU we would be reduced to the status of a Norway or a Switzerland, perhaps there should be a review of his competence. Incidentally, Norway and Switzerland have the second and fourth highest GDP per capita in the world. Life outside the EU can go on if countries enjoy full trading relations.

William Hague: I will not stray as widely from the statement as my hon. Friend has asked me to, but I urge him to submit his thoughts to the review. The review can give rise to policy conclusions, and he has given a strong hint of the conclusions that he might draw from it. I look forward to discussing that further in the future.

Nicholas Soames: I warmly welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement about what will be a very important piece of work, especially since, as we all know, Europe will have to change dramatically following this dreadful eurozone crisis. Does he agree that the debate that follows will need to be conducted in a calm and rational way, given that, as he has said, Britain’s interests lie in full and wholehearted membership of the European Union?

William Hague: It is important for the debate about Europe to be well informed. Many Members on both sides of the House will cite instances in which European directives or EU competences are used in a way that is unnecessarily meddling or interfering at local or national level, but it is equally important to understand the importance of the single market to the economy of the United Kingdom. I hope that the review will draw out those issues and establish a huge amount of common ground, even among people whose opinions about the European Union differ, so that the debate can then focus on the genuine differences.

Chris Heaton-Harris: At last! I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the statement and the Command Paper. By the end of this audit, we shall know exactly how the EU has bound its tentacles throughout Government. We shall also know the cost of our membership, and, through the work of the Fresh Start project—that is just a little advertisement—we shall know that we have options for change. Does the
	Foreign Secretary agree that all this will provide the British public with the information that they require to make a judgment on what any new relationship, post-eurozone crisis, should look like?

William Hague: I hope that the review will indeed provide that information. Not everyone will think that the right conclusion has been drawn, but it will make the biggest single contribution to the provision of information on which we can base policies in the future. I welcome the work that has already been done by, for instance, the Fresh Start group, of which my hon. Friend is a leading member, because that is exactly the kind of active, positive and constructive thinking about Europe that we need to see and that should feed into the review.

Elizabeth Truss: I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on the review. Can he confirm that it will examine the costs of EU regulation, not just in its own context but by comparison with the costs of regulation around the world? It worries me that the UK currently ranks 83rd in the World Economic Forum’s regulation league table.

William Hague: Of course the review will be able to examine that issue, and my hon. Friend, among others, will be able to make representations about it. Part of the argument about how competence is exercised, and about the level of government at which it should be exercised, relates to the costs that are involved, and it will therefore be wholly legitimate to consider such questions.

Philip Hollobone: I welcome the review, but may I express my regret that it does not go far enough? My right hon. Friend is right about so many things, and indeed I was with him until the second sentence of his statement—[Laughter]—in which he said, “Membership of the EU is in the UK’s national interests.” I do not agree with that, and nor do an increasing number of my constituents. Rather than asking what is the balance of the relationship between Britain and our EU partners, should not the review ask whether the United Kingdom is better off in or better off out of the whole thing?

William Hague: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend was with me until the second sentence of my statement. However, given that in the first sentence I merely said that I was going to make a statement, I will not take that as a ringing endorsement.
	Of course my hon. Friend has a strong view, which is different from mine, about membership of the European Union. However, I think that he will concede that reviews of this kind, which spell out in detail how competence is exercised and, in many instances, what the costs are, and which set out properly the facts of how it is exercised in a single market, in directives and in many other contexts, can at least ensure that any debates about that issue, now and in future, are better informed and take place on the basis of a common understanding of the facts that would otherwise be lacking.

George Eustice: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement as a crucial first step towards Britain’s inevitable renegotiation
	of its membership of the EU. Does he expect the review also to examine the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and, in particular, its tendency to widen the scope of certain directives beyond the extent that national Governments originally envisaged?

William Hague: Yes, it is part of the history of EU competence that it has sometimes been extended, not by treaties and not by the decisions of nation states, but by rulings of the European Court of Justice, or by an expansive interpretation of the treaties by the European Commission. As we go through each of the issues, the way in which competences have developed in the past will be a legitimate factor in the assessment of how competence should be exercised in the future.

David Rutley: Like many of my hon. Friends, I warmly welcome the statement. I am keen to see a fundamental realignment of the UK’s relationship with Europe. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the prospect of a more multi-tier Europe should hold no fears for us, and, in that spirit, can he confirm that the UK will not be part of an EU banking union?

William Hague: We will not be part of an EU banking union. There are, of course, supervisory arrangements in respect of which we have common arrangements with the rest of the European Union, but the United Kingdom will certainly not become part of a full-scale banking union, participating in the provision of mutualised deposit guarantees. I hope that that, too, is common ground across British politics.
	As for my hon. Friend’s question about a multi-tier Europe, I believe that the European Union, however it develops, will have to become more flexible. The unitary patent is an example of that, as is, in a different way, the fisheries policy as it develops. As the EU enlarges, as we hope it will, it is inevitable that it will become more flexible, and essential for it to do so.

Peter Bone: I have no objection to the statement, but the Foreign Secretary is being a little coy. Is it not possible that the Conservative party will go into the next election promising a renegotiation and then a referendum, which will lead to a 100-seat Conservative majority followed by the renegotiation and then the referendum, in which the people will be able to choose whether to accept the renegotiation or pull out of the EU?

William Hague: I am glad my hon. Friend has no objection—which is quite rare when it comes to statements, so I also appreciate that endorsement. He is asking about a party issue, whereas I am speaking as the Foreign Secretary of the coalition Government today. I am sure we will profit in our party meetings from discussing the issues that he raises.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the statement, but will the audit include a cost-benefit analysis of our relationship with the EU, and will the Foreign Secretary make my constituents of Harlow incredibly happy by saying that it will look at immigration and that we will get back immigration as our area of competence, not the EU’s?

William Hague: The review will, inevitably, look at costs in most of the areas that I have described, but that is a different exercise from trying to arrive at a single figure for cost and benefit. There are many aspects of our relationship with the EU to which it is difficult to attach a financial benefit or cost. In the work that I do in respect of a common policy towards sanctions on Iran or Syria, for example, it is beneficial to the UK that we act with our partners, but it is hard to attribute a financial benefit to that. So I do not think one can arrive at a single number, as my hon. Friend may be looking for, but it is, of course, possible within this analysis across many different policy areas to look at costs and benefits, and it is absolutely possible in the work the Home Office will do to look at migration responsibilities and issues, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is very keen to do so.

Margot James: I very much welcome the positioning of this review as an outward-facing exercise. My right hon. Friend states that the relationship between the EU and the member state is a subject of intense debate in many member states, so will he take every opportunity to bring like-minded member states with us in our bid to recast the balance of power, so that the competitiveness of Europe as a whole improves in relation to the growth markets in the world?

William Hague: We are, of course, already engaged in trying to persuade like-minded member states that we must do the essential things in respect of permitting growth to take place in the European economy. That includes doing everything we can to limit the further application of the working time directive, and it means that directives currently being debated—the pregnant workers directive and the posted workers directive—that are further unnecessary burdens on businesses must be resisted. So we are already engaged in that work, quite separately from this review and analysis.

James Morris: I welcome the statement. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, as we are pursuing a radical policy of localism in Britain, decentralising power to local government and local communities, that spirit of localism should also inform our thinking about our future relationship with the EU?

William Hague: Yes, I very much agree. I have mentioned the common fisheries policy and the decades-overdue changes that are now at least being contemplated, and that would lead to more local, regional or national decision-making. It is certainly my view that we need to go in that direction in more policy areas.

Sajid Javid: The vast majority of my constituents rightly believe that we have given away too many powers to the EU, and they will never forgive the previous Government for signing us up to the European constitution without the promised referendum. I welcome the statement, but will my right hon. Friend confirm that the review will be very open and transparent and, importantly, that all evidence submitted will be made available to the public?

William Hague: I agree: it is my view as well that too many powers have been given to the EU. That has certainly happened—and it has happened notably in the past few
	years under the Lisbon treaty. I therefore think that my hon. Friend’s constituents are right about that. I can confirm that, unless there is some powerful—and at this stage, very unexpected—reason to the contrary, the evidence given will be publicly available.

Andrew Murrison: I welcome the statement—and, with due deference to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), may I say that I actually rather liked all of it? I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary mentioned Guido Westerwelle, who, somewhat famously, said at the February 2010 Munich security conference that it was his aspiration to move towards a European army with full parliamentary control. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that this review will look at the European security and defence policy and the so-called EU defence identity?

William Hague: Yes, the review will, and I shall welcome my hon. Friend’s contribution to the review—as I welcome his endorsement of this statement. My friend and colleague Guido Westerwelle and I have quite different views on such issues. He has talked about a European army. I do not believe that can ever be contemplated, and I will maintain quite a strong difference of view with some of my colleagues about that.

Mark Reckless: The latest opinion poll recorded that 48% of people wanted to leave the EU and that only 31% wanted to stay in. The Foreign Secretary is in the minority therefore, but would it not be more sensible for him to take that view at the conclusion of his audit, rather than prejudging it before it starts?

William Hague: As I have said, hon. Members and political parties will be able to draw their policy conclusions from this review, and they will also, no doubt, take into account events that happen in the meantime. I am stating the policy of the coalition Government and pointing out that that has not changed, but in doing so, I do not prejudge the opinion that anybody could come to at the conclusion of this review.

David Nuttall: Following on from the last question, if the findings of this review demonstrate that our membership of the EU is damaging the prosperity of UK citizens, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the right and logical thing to do will be to give the British people the option to leave the EU by holding a referendum?

William Hague: Again, my hon. Friend is, in line with his consistently held views, trying to take me on to a different and further debate. What I am setting out today is a process that will inform the wider debate. It might inform it in different directions, but it will help to ensure that the debate takes place on the basis of established facts, and I am sure that that will be beneficial for all.

Bob Blackman: One of the many mistakes made by the last Labour Government was the blatant failure to control immigration from new entrant states to the EU. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the effect of immigration from new entrant states and UK immigration controls will be part of this review, as will the benefits and disbenefits of the policy pursued by the last Labour Government?

William Hague: As I pointed out in an earlier reply, representations can be made on migration issues. The Home Secretary is keen to look at that area in this review, and I am confident it will be looked at. I look forward to such representations being made.

Lindsay Hoyle: Last, but certainly not least, I call Chris Pincher.

Christopher Pincher: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker; I know my place.
	I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this initiative, but does he agree that when the results of the audit are known, thanks to the supine posture struck by previous Governments, the British people will be shocked at the extent to which the EU involves itself unnecessarily in our affairs?

William Hague: Well, they might be shocked in some areas. I am trying not to prejudge the review, but I cannot exclude the possibility that they will be shocked by some of its findings. I am delighted that there has been such a warm welcome for the review from those who expect to be shocked, those who want to be shocked and those Opposition Members who never seem to have been shocked by the extent of the powers that they handed away.

Business of the House

George Young: With permission, I should like to make a statement about the business for next week, which will be as follows:
	Monday 16 July—Opposition day (4th allotted day). There will be a debate on health, followed by a debate on adult social care. These debates will arise on Opposition motions.
	Tuesday 17 July—Debate on a motion relating to the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests, followed by a motion on the summer recess Adjournment, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The business for the week commencing 3 September will include:
	Monday 3 September—Second Reading of the European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Bill [Lords].
	Tuesday 4 September—Second Reading of the Small Charitable Donations Bill, followed by a motion to approve a money resolution on the Prisons (Interference with Wireless Telegraphy) Bill.
	Wednesday 5 September—Opposition day (5th allotted day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, the subject of which is to be announced.
	Thursday 6 September—Debate on a motion relating to immigration, followed by debate on a motion relating to community hospitals. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 7 September—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business for Westminster Hall for 6 September will be:
	Thursday 6 September—A debate on the UK’s energy supply, followed by a debate on building regulations applying to electrical and gas installation and repairs in dwellings.
	As these are the last business questions before the summer recess, may I, as usual, thank the staff of the House for all their hard work, Mr Deputy Speaker? I hope that they have a good and well-deserved break before we return in September. I am sure that the whole House will also want to join me in wishing all participants in this summer’s Olympic and Paralympic games the best of luck, especially Team GB.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. May I echo his thanks to all the staff of the House for the way they have supported us this Session? May I also say to him that, following his written ministerial statement on the experiment with public reading stages, the Opposition will certainly be looking forward to the pilot?
	As these are the last business questions before the Olympics, may I take this opportunity, as the Leader of the House has just done, to wish Team GB all the best? The whole country is behind them. However, given today’s urgent question on security, the problems with
	the M4 flyover and the continuing issues at Heathrow, could he assure us that the Government are confident that these troubles will be overcome before the opening ceremony?
	The Government’s handling of the House of Lords Reform Bill has descended into farce. On Tuesday, the Prime Minister lost control of his party and the Government abandoned the programme motion. Despite an explicit promise to me on Tuesday, the Leader of the House has failed to make a further announcement about how the Government intend to proceed. I hope that he will do so in his reply to me.
	In his usual helpful way, the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Oakeshott said on Wednesday that the Prime Minister must
	“not cringe to the Tory dinosaurs now they have tasted blood.”
	Last night at the 1922 committee the Prime Minister apparently gave a hint about how he wishes to proceed when, after hugging his beleaguered Chief Whip—we all agree with that and can add our sympathy to him—he said:
	“We are not going to negotiate with Labour, they are the enemy and they can’t be trusted—we are going to negotiate with the Liberal Democrats”.
	By all accounts, the Prime Minister’s unique perspective on the trustworthiness of Liberal Democrats did not go down terribly well in that room. It was then pointed out to him by a much more experienced member of the Conservative parliamentary party that:
	“Labour is not the enemy; they are Her Majesty’s Opposition”.
	May I gently suggest to the Leader of the House that, as the PM clearly does not have the votes on his own side to deliver House of Lords reform, we should proceed on the basis of genuine cross-party discussion and agreement?
	At business questions last week, I asked the Leader of the House about Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers splitting Government time to enable them to differentiate themselves from one another. In reply, he said that, when it came to the House of Lords Reform Bill, there would be a
	“seamless approach to the legislation from those who are opening and closing the debates”.—[Official Report, 5 July 2012; Vol. 547, c. 1071.]
	It did not quite work out that way, did it? I see that the Government announced at the end of last month that they were launching a £14 million fund to help people through the process of divorce. It gives people who are splitting up advice on how to divorce amicably and avoid arguments. Could the Leader of the House say whether the Prime Minister and his deputy were the first in line to receive the advice?
	Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister sent an e-mail to his dwindling band of party activists, and I have managed to obtain a copy. In it, he says of Tuesday’s Lords vote:
	“This is a huge triumph for our party”.
	I wonder what on earth a disaster would look like in the eyes of the Deputy Prime Minister.
	Last night’s suggestion that replacing the remaining hereditary peers with directly elected Members is a substantive reform is absurd. We have been debating whether there should be a 100% elected or an 80% elected second Chamber; electing just 10% would not be
	a democratic reform. A 10% elected second Chamber would not be a compromise; it would be the Liberal Democrats running up the white flag.
	What a shambles this has been: the Prime Minister has lost control of his party; the Liberal Democrats are in revolt; and Government Whips have taken to ordering rebel Tory Back Benchers off the premises. And it is not just Government Whips who have been bullying their own Back Benchers. We have got used to the Prime Minister losing his rag at the Dispatch Box, but on Tuesday night, in one of his Flashman moments, he had an angry altercation with one of his leading Back-Bench rebels. Would the Leader of the House make a suggestion to the Prime Minister: “Just calm down”?

George Young: On the first question, we are determined that the Olympics will be a great success and that the issues that the hon. Lady referred to will be resolved in good time.
	The hon. Lady conveniently glossed over the rebellion among the Labour Members, 26 of whom defied their Whip, so it is clear that the Conservative party is not the only party that has differences on this issue. In my business statement, I announced the business for the first week back, which did not include further progress on the Bill, but on the substantive issue that she raised, it was clear from the vote on Second Reading that a huge majority of the House want to get on with it, with majorities within each of the three major parties voting for reform. She said that we could trust the Labour party, but I have to say that the Labour party was willing the end but not willing the means. Saying before the programme motion was even tabled that Labour Members would vote against it shows a lack of commitment to getting the Bill on to the statute book.
	It was equally clear on Tuesday that there was no consensus on the timetable for the Bill, which is why we did not make progress with the programme motion. What we want to do—I say this in response to what the hon. Lady has just said—is to reflect and to allow time for meaningful discussion, including with the Opposition and with other hon. Members, to build a consensus on the best way forward. As I said on Tuesday, we do intend to table a timetable motion for the Bill in the autumn, but, as the House would expect, we want those discussions to take place first before I can give the House any further information.
	As for marital relations, I think that relationships within the coalition are much better than relationships within the previous Labour Government. I get on much better with my deputy than the previous Prime Minister got on with Tony Blair. I just say to the hon. Lady, in conclusion, that two parties are working together to put right the mess left behind by the Labour party, which still refused to admit that it got anything wrong.

Bob Blackman: Under the coalition Government, 10,000 more people suffering from cancer have received treatment as a result of the cancer drugs fund that we introduced. That would not have been possible had we followed the Labour party’s proposals to cut the national health service. May we have a debate on the benefits that the coalition Government have brought to the health service and the further improvements we can bring to cancer research?

George Young: I am glad to say to my hon. Friend that we can have a debate on the health service, because we will have one on Monday. The subject was chosen by the Opposition and that debate will give all my hon. Friends the opportunity to explain the extra resources we have made available to the NHS, resources that it would have been denied by Opposition Members, including the cancer drugs fund to which my hon. Friend just referred.

Jonathan Ashworth: May I return to a theme that was raised extensively during last week’s business questions, which is the review of children’s heart services? The Leader of the House will recall that Members from both sides of the House raised that important issue with him. The decision to end services at Leicester’s Glenfield hospital has been shattering news for families and patients in Glenfield. Already 28,000 people have signed a petition and 250 are signing it by the hour, but unfortunately time has not been found for a specific debate on the future of children’s heart services. I concede that there is an Opposition day debate on health, but given the cross-party support I am not sure whether that is the appropriate moment to discuss this. Will the Leader of the House find time for such a debate or impress on a Health Minister the importance of coming to the House to make a statement on the future of children’s heart services before the summer recess?

Several hon. Members: rose —

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I stress that a lot of Members are trying to catch my eye and we are already quite late into the day. I want to get everybody in, so if we can have short questions that will be very helpful and I am sure that we will get speedy answers. This is the last chance that Members will have to ask questions of the Leader of the House before the recess so I want to get everybody in.

George Young: After the passionate representations made at business questions last Thursday, I raised the matter immediately with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Health. There are Health questions on Tuesday and I am glad to say that the Backbench Business Committee has found time specifically for debate on children’s heart surgery in Leeds and on children’s heart surgery in Leicester during the pre-recess Adjournment debate on Tuesday. There will also be opportunities to raise the issue during the Opposition day debate on Monday. I hope that between now and the time the House goes into recess there will be three opportunities for the hon. Gentleman and others who share his concern to raise the matter with my hon. Friends in the Department.

David Nuttall: In view of the constitutional importance of the House of Lords Reform Bill, will the Leader of the House confirm that sufficient time will be provided in Committee of the whole House for every clause and every schedule to be debated?

George Young: It is certainly our intention that there should be sufficient time to debate the House of Lords Reform Bill in Committee. Speaking from memory, I can tell my hon. Friend that 50 hours have already
	been devoted to the Bill by the Joint Committee. In addition to providing adequate time for consideration of the House of Lords Bill, it is also the Government’s intention to provide adequate time to debate the other Bills in the legislative programme.

Wayne David: On the question of House of Lords reform, given that the Prime Minister has said that he does not trust the Opposition, how on earth can we have a constructive dialogue unless we recognise there must be mutual respect?

George Young: I repeat what I said to the Opposition on Tuesday: we are very anxious to have a constructive dialogue with them about the programme motion, but despite repeated requests on the Floor of the House for them to tell us how many days they want in Committee, we did not get an answer. I repeat what I said to the hon. Gentleman when he intervened in my speech on Tuesday, which is that we are happy to enter into discussions with the Opposition, as I said a few moments ago, to find a way forward. As Leader of the House, I am conscious of the fact that a large majority in the House wants the Bill on the statute book and it is up to all those who want to see it there to work together to achieve that objective.

Matthew Offord: The Government intend to introduce ambitious targets for the recycling of plastic packaging, which will impose financial obligations on UK manufacturers. However, local collection and sorting of plastic packaging is a long way off from being able to deliver those targets and there is little incentive for local councils to improve when they have weight-based recycling targets. May we have an urgent debate on how to establish a realistic road map for promoting recycling that takes account of the local reality and does not hold small and medium-sized enterprises financially responsible for delivering targets that are outside their control?

George Young: My hon. Friend raises an issue that is of concern to many local authorities, including my own. I shall raise the matter with my relevant colleagues, who are presumably those at the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Communities and Local Government, to see whether we can find a way through and provide real incentives to recycle that do not impose unrealistic obligations on small and medium-sized enterprises.

Paul Goggins: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made to sort out the mixed messages that are being sent by Ministers to Citizens Advice in Manchester? In June, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly),wrote to me to confirm that he was terminating the contract for the community legal advice centres that Citizens Advice runs in the city of Manchester six months early, so the money will run out next March. At the same time, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd), who is the Minister for civil society, wrote to the same organisation to congratulate it in glowing terms for its achievements and saying specifically:
	“We would like to see many more projects like yours”.
	Will the Leader of the House get those two Ministers together to sort out the message and, more importantly, to sort out some additional resources to ensure that the services can continue?

George Young: Of course I will respond to the challenge laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, contact the two Ministers to whom he has referred and get a consistent response, hopefully so that that good organisation can continue to provide advice to the citizens in his constituency. I will raise the matter with the Lord Chancellor and the Minister for civil society in the Cabinet Office.

David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on his efforts, including a change in the law, to clear the demonstrators out of Parliament square so that it is available for all the visitors during the Olympics? When does the Leader of the House expect the remaining demonstrators to leave?

George Young: My hon. Friend was a keen supporter of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, which prohibits the erection of tents on Parliament square. As he knows, many were removed relatively recently. Operational decisions on making further progress to clear the square are a matter for the Metropolitan police and I shall draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the police to see whether any further action is needed.

Valerie Vaz: In previous years, the children who attended the international physics Olympiad were given funding. Last year, they won three silver and two bronze medals. Despite my letters to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Education, they have refused to restore funding. Will the Leader of the House look at how we can support our brilliant future physicists?

George Young: I commend the achievements mentioned by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—I stress the reference to Walsall, after last week—and will raise the issues she has raised with ministerial colleagues and will ask them to write to her.

Robert Smith: The Leader of the House will know how important local post offices are to many of our constituents around the country, especially in rural areas, and how welcome it is that the Government have made a commitment to having no post office closure programme. May we have an update from the Government on the new Post Office Local model, and particularly whether the Post Office is putting them into the right venues? The loss of services that come with the transition might not be appropriate in all cases.

George Young: My hon. Friend is right that we have committed ourselves to no wholesale closures of post offices such as those that we saw in previous Parliaments. I will raise the issue with the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who will be at the Dispatch Box on the first Thursday after we come back. I will see whether I can get a response before then.

Madeleine Moon: On Tuesday, we had a statement from the Department for Work and Pensions about the proposed closure of Remploy factories. The Minister did not give a list of those factories that were facing definite closure and nine were under possible commercial bids. My Bridgend Remploy factory thought that it had made a successful bid and that it was one of those whose bid for their own future was going forward. It is now subject to a commercial factory bid and has no idea who the bid is from or what the future contains. May we have an accurate and fully detailed statement from the DWP about what is happening, and can each Member who has an appropriate factory be notified before we rise for the recess of what is happening in their area to the people who are directly employed in their Remploy factories?

George Young: As the hon. Lady said, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller), who has responsibility for disability, came to the House to make a statement on Tuesday and answered questions for a substantial amount of time. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was able to get in on that exchange and ask that question, but I shall certainly raise the question of the future of the Remploy factory in Bridgend with my hon. Friend and will ask her to write to the hon. Lady so that we have some clarity on which avenue that factory is going down.

David Ruffley: The Leader of the House referred to the Government’s intention to table a time allocation motion on the House of Lords Reform Bill. Can he confirm that that will be tabled during the September sittings?

George Young: The precise wording that I think I used on Tuesday was “in the autumn”. I have announced the business for the first week back. We are sitting for two and a half weeks in September, and I would very much hope that by the time we rise for the conference recess I will be able to give the House further information about our proposals for the Bill.

Ian Mearns: One of the particular pleasures that I have had since being elected in 2010 is to welcome parties of schoolchildren to this place from my constituency, and many hundreds of them have benefited from that. One unintended consequence of the decisions taken last night could well be that those opportunities are curtailed somewhat, particularly for parties having to travel many miles to get here. Will the Leader of the House use his best endeavours to try to maximise the opportunities for such school parties in future?

George Young: This refers to a debate that took place yesterday when the Deputy Leader of the House mentioned that specific consequence. The House has made a clear decision when to sit on Tuesday, but we will look at the consequences for tours and see whether we can find some way through to make sure that those who want to visit the House are able to do so.

Jeremy Lefroy: The 2010 Browne report recommended that an efficient national scheme be set up through the student finance system to encourage
	past graduates to contribute to university endowment funds. May we have a debate on this subject and the progress on that?

George Young: I cannot promise an early debate before the House rises, but my hon. Friend makes an important point. I can only suggest that when the House returns in September he applies for a debate in Westminster Hall, so that he can pursue this particular avenue and deal with it at greater length.

John Denham: The right hon. Gentleman has been here even longer than I have, and I have been here long enough. Will he draw on his considerable experience of this House to confirm that in a situation where a clear majority of the House supports a Bill in principle, it is perfectly possible to make good and measured progress even if there is not a timetable resolution, simply by that majority closing a debate on a particular topic when it has had due attention and moving on to the next matter? Can we kill the myth that a timetable resolution is essential for progress on a Bill?

George Young: That was not the conclusion drawn by the Labour Government, who introduced timetable motions on all the constitutional measures in the recent Parliament. There is a real risk if we go down the route suggested by the right hon. Gentleman—who I am sorry is standing down at the next election—of having protracted debates on individual subjects each of which need to be guillotined. My own view is that it is much better if, in principle, one can seek agreement on an overall amount of time and then plan the debate for the Bill in conjunction with the time that is needed for all the other Bills. I am slightly reluctant to go down the route that the right hon. Gentleman has just invited me to go down.

Bernard Jenkin: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the debate on Tuesday on the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests? The motion now has, or will by tomorrow morning, no fewer than 18 signatures from Chairs of Select Committees, and includes support from people such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). I have good indications and hope that Her Majesty’s Official Opposition are also sympathetic to the motion. Will the Government be seeking to block the motion and will the Leader of the House say which Minister will be leading for the Government?

George Young: I am glad that we have found time to debate this important issue, which was displaced when we had the debate on the banking inquiry last Thursday. This was a step that the Opposition were not prepared to take in government, so I take their current support with just a pinch of salt. I cannot tell my hon. Friend who will be responding to the debate, and he will have to wait for the reply from a Minister to find out the Government’s reaction to the proposition that he has put before the House.

Kerry McCarthy: In the written ministerial statement today on wild animals in circuses, the Government talk as though they are proposing a ban, but it is clear that they are considering a licensing regime. That is not what the many, many Members who turned out for the debate a year ago were led to believe when the Government promised them a ban in an attempt to avoid an embarrassing defeat. May we have an urgent statement on it?

George Young: My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made it clear that we are proceeding with changes to the licensing system in the short term, but we are committed to legislating in the longer term. If the hon. Lady looks at the written ministerial statement, there is a clear reference to draft legislation.

Julian Lewis: The almost complete absence of Liberal Democrats from their Benches today suggests that most of them may already have abandoned the marital home, but despite that massive handicap, may we have a debate on a votable motion in Government time on the future of the nuclear deterrent? Members from both sides of the House would very much like an opportunity to express their views on such an important matter, because we have not had a chance to do so since 2007.

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s interest. He will know that the Minister for the Armed Forces is undertaking a review, which I think was the subject of an exchange at recent Defence questions. A good opportunity to have a debate on that issue will be when that review is completed.

Barry Sheerman: The Leader of the House will know that many young people will be leaving schools, colleges and universities this summer, and many will be in danger of joining an already large number—almost 1 million—of unemployed young people. He knows that I have asked for greater attention, imagination and leadership on this issue for a long time. Has he considered the call that I have heard outside this place for the Duchess of Cambridge to have a particular role looking at and leading on the issue of young people who need our help this summer?

George Young: I will certainly ensure that the Palace is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion. He will know that in the last quarter, youth unemployment was down by 29,000, and I hope very much that we can maintain that downward trend. He will also know that there are a range of initiatives on apprenticeships, the youth contract and the Work programme, which we hope will further reduce the rate of youth unemployment.

Peter Bone: I know how much the Leader of the House hates programme motions because on constitutional matters when in opposition he always voted against them. May I make a suggestion that will be helpful to him, the Chief Whip and Parliament? The problem on Tuesday night was not caused by the programme motion; it was because there was not a business of the House committee. If there had been such a committee, with members who were not part of the Executive or the shadow Executive, it would have
	made time available. Surely in September we should bring in a business of the House committee, and that would solve all the right hon. Gentleman’s problems on programme motions.

George Young: I am not sure that my hon. Friend has got that one absolutely right. The Wright Committee recommendations make it absolutely clear that the Government have an entitlement to get their business through. My hon. Friend’s suggestion is that the Government’s business should be subjected to a regime that might put at risk the likelihood of the Government getting their Bills through. It was always envisaged that the House would set up a Backbench Business Committee, which we have done, but it was always recognised that the Government should be entitled to get their business through.

Clive Efford: I will certainly be trying to speak in Monday’s health debate, but I am dismayed that the Leader of the House has not given any notice that the Secretary of State for Health intends to come to the House, because he has issued a written statement today about appointing an administrator for my local healthcare trust. He has met the Conservative Members of Bromley and one of the Conservative Members of Bexley who are affected by the decision all together, but he did not meet the Labour Member who covers a Bexley seat, nor the Labour Members in the borough of Greenwich. That is clear and blatant politicising of the decision. I hope that the Leader of the House will take that back and make it clear that not only is the House unhappy with the Health Secretary’s behaviour, but that it is not appropriate for him to avoid coming to that Dispatch Box having put out blatant misinformation from his Department about the performance of that trust.

George Young: The Secretary of State has put the House in the picture by making a written ministerial statement, which is a perfectly appropriate means of communicating Government initiatives. There is a health debate on Monday, where the hon. Gentleman may be able to raise this. I think the issue of meeting Members of Parliament was raised at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, and I will do as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said and make further inquiries to see whether meetings can now take place that have not taken place so far.

Mark Pawsey: I shall be travelling to Rwanda this weekend to join Project Umubano, the Conservative party’s social action project. May we have a debate on how such projects are an excellent way for volunteers to appreciate international development issues?

George Young: I welcome my hon. Friend’s initiative and know that he has been to Rwanda before. As we speak, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development is on his way there, and I commend the work being done by those volunteers who are helping to transfer skills in medicine, law, business and a range of other areas. There was an opportunity to develop this yesterday at International Development questions. My hon. Friend will know that we are sticking to our promise on aid because it is the right thing to do and because it helps our own security and prosperity.

John Healey: In his big red file, does the Leader of the House have a copy of every one of the 28 written ministerial statements tabled today, including the one confirming that the Government are cutting funding for further education courses for older students, which will mean that those over 24 will have to pay up to £4,000 a year at a time when they are worried about jobs, debt and how to pay the bills? It has been tabled, with the regulations, just three days before the summer recess, preventing this House from properly challenging this big change. Will he make time for a debate on the change in this Chamber?

George Young: There is an Opposition day on Monday, when the Opposition could have chosen this subject for debate. I have looked through the written ministerial statements. I saw one from the same Minister, the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning, about extending loans to students aged over 24, which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will welcome.

Ben Bradshaw: May we have a statement from the Health Secretary on regional pay, given the decision by 20 NHS trusts in the south-west to walk away from the national pay agreement, “Agenda for Change”, which thousands of NHS staff in Exeter and the wider south-west feel will lead to a further erosion of their pay and conditions, not least because the Liberal Democrats have been boasting recently that they blocked Conservative plans for regional pay?

George Young: There is a health debate on Monday, when the right hon. Gentleman will be able to raise the matter.

Brandon Lewis: This morning I attended the Federation of Wholesale Distributors conference and had the chance to be reminded how important the industry is in supplying millions of people across the country through the retail network. Like retail, it is primarily made up of small and medium-sized enterprises, the very businesses that the Government are focused on for delivering job growth and economic growth and that have provided the half a million extra jobs we have seen since the coalition came to power. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate in the autumn, in Government time, on the work the Government are doing to encourage SMEs and secure further job growth?

George Young: I will spend the summer recess looking forward to that debate, when we can explain what we have done: cutting corporation tax, ensuring access to finance, scrapping regulations, setting up 24 new enterprise zones and a range of other measures to promote employment and growth in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere.

Robert Halfon: May we have an urgent debate on the anti-Christian behaviour and bias of the Charity Commission? A constituent has contacted me because the commission has revoked the charitable status of a trust that is part of the Brethren Christian Church, which does a lot of good work for charity. This is an extremely important test case because it has widespread implications for all Christian charitable trusts. Does the Leader of the House not agree that Christian groups
	that are serving the community have the right to charitable status and should not be subject to politically correct bias?

George Young: I am sure that the Charity Commission is not anti-Christian. I do not think that the organisation to which my hon. Friend refers has ever been registered as a charity, so it is not quite true to say that that status has been revoked. The application has been turned down because it was not clear whether there was enough social engagement with the community to meet the public interest criteria. As I understand it, that decision has now gone to appeal at the first tier, which I think is probably the right way to resolve it.

David Hanson: Dairy farmers in my constituency were so concerned about the current and future potential cuts to the price of milk before 1 August that they travelled the 220 miles to London yesterday, with many hundreds of others, to complain about the potential loss of £50,000 from their incomes. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), is having meetings this week about the consultation on contracts, but can the Leader of the House indicate whether we will have a written or oral statement on the matter before the House rises and, if not, what mechanism is in place to ensure feedback to those farmers before the price cut deadline of 1 August?

George Young: There will be a debate specifically on the dairy industry in the pre-recess Adjournment debate on Tuesday, which I hope will be an opportunity to bring the House up to date. I know that many hon. Members met their dairy farmers yesterday to listen to their concerns. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has made available £5 million to help certain farmers and that we are doing all we can to promote a voluntary agreement that will provide greater transparency and improve contractual arrangements between purchasers and dairy farmers.

Martin Vickers: The Office of the Rail Regulator is currently carrying out a review of access charges for freight traffic moving on to the network, which are potentially very damaging for businesses that transport heavy bulk loads in and out of Immingham port in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the matter from the Secretary of State for Transport?

George Young: I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the concern my hon. Friend has just expressed. It is very important that we develop the railway network in such a way that it is possible to move freight from road to rail and that the interests of freight operators are not ignored when we look at track access charges.

Karl Turner: Bullying in the workplace is apparently on the increase. On Tuesday night I witnessed a very red-faced and angry Prime Minister sticking his fingers in the face of the hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire
	(Jesse Norman), who, reportedly, was then removed and marched off the estate by the Prime Minister’s henchmen. May we please have an urgent debate on bullying in this place and the Prime Minister’s anger management issues?

George Young: I honestly think that there are better business questions that can be put to the Leader of the House than recycled gossip and tittle-tattle.

James Morris: Jaguar Land Rover has recently announced that it intends to create 4,500 new jobs over the next five years and is investing £500 million in a new engine plant in the Black Country enterprise zone. May we have a debate on the success of that enterprise zone in supporting a successful automotive industry in the west midlands?

George Young: My hon. Friend reinforces a request for a debate made a few moments ago, which I would very much welcome, although I cannot promise one before we rise for the recess. We need to give business in the UK all possible support, removing regulatory barriers to growth and promoting the excellent record of the motor industry—we are now a net exporter of cars, rather than a net importer. It is absolutely crucial that we stick to our fiscal consolidation targets, which have provided the right framework for this success.

Jim Fitzpatrick: Although this morning’s written ministerial statement on aviation strategy from the Department for Transport is welcome, the House was expecting a second written statement and a consultation on capacity in the south-east and the status of a hub airport. That absence is regarded by business organisations and the TUC as harming British competitiveness and the British economy. Can we expect to have the statement in September, or will it be delayed a third time? We are two years into the coalition but still have not had a strategy.

George Young: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the written ministerial statement on aviation policy, which makes it clear that we intend to publish a call for evidence on maintaining our international connectivity in the medium and longer term. We remain committed to adopting the final aviation policy framework by next spring, so there will be the second phase to which he refers in due course.

Philip Hollobone: Has the Leader of the House noticed that Members from Britain’s supposedly third major political party, with a few honourable exceptions, appear week after week to be absent from this Chamber on Thursdays? Is it official Government policy to give the Liberal Democrats a disproportionate leave of absence, or could the national interest, which the rest of us discuss, perhaps be made more interesting and important to attract greater attendance from the junior coalition partner?

George Young: I am not sure that that is a useful subject for a future debate, but, if my hon. Friend looks at the record in the Division Lobbies, he will see that our coalition partners have been present—on some occasions in even greater proportions than some members of my own great party.

Seema Malhotra: On Tuesday, a piece appeared in The Guardian about the difficulty that my disabled constituent Ray Bellisario has had accessing buses in his permissible wheelchair, often when going to and from hospital. Despite repeated letters on the issue to the disabilities Minister, Maria Miller, over the past 18 months, he had received no reply. Miraculously, however, a letter appeared in The Guardian from Maria Miller—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We should not use personal names. If we refer to a “Minister”, that will be fine.

Seema Malhotra: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
	Miraculously, however, a letter appeared today from the Minister for disabled people, suggesting concern at Mr Bellisario’s plight. A citizen in a wheelchair should not have to take or to threaten legal action to get a response. May we have an urgent debate about the needs of people with disabilities when accessing public services, including transport, and the Government’s effectiveness in addressing those issues.

George Young: I am grateful to the hon. Lady and have seen that article in The Guardian. As she says, my hon. Friend the Minister for disabilities takes the issue seriously and is intervening. It is important that those in wheelchairs have access to public transport, and I will ask my hon. Friend to write to the hon. Lady.

Edward Leigh: May I join my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) in pressing the Leader of the House on the appalling decision by the charity commissioners to revoke charitable status from the churches called Gospel halls of the Plymouth Brethren on the ground that they do not admit non-members to their holy communion, although they do admit non-members to all services, bible readings and all the rest? These people are a small and completely harmless Christian community. For almost 200 years we have proclaimed in this Chamber the right to religious freedom. This is a vital and important issue, and we should proclaim it.

George Young: Further to the original question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), I must say that it has been decided not to enter one of the Brethren halls on the register of charities because the legal basis for the registration of that organisation as a charity is not clear, and the question, as I said a moment ago, was whether the trust met the public benefit requirement, given the limited social engagement of the followers of the Brethren in the wider community. That decision has been challenged by way of an appeal to the first tier tribunal, and that is probably the right way to let it proceed.

Mark Lazarowicz: Since the Rio+20 conference, the Environmental Audit Committee has been trying to get the Deputy Prime Minister to appear before it to report on the summit, at which he led the UK delegation. He has not yet found time to do so, but, given that his responsibilities for legislation might be a little lighter in the immediate future, will the Leader of the House ask the Deputy
	Prime Minister to ensure that he appears before the Committee to report on the conference and on how the UK takes forward the issues raised at it?

George Young: As I have been reminded, the Deputy Prime Minister made a statement to the House and is regularly accountable to the House at the Dispatch Box. It has been a convention, among all Governments, that they decide which Minister to put before a particular Select Committee. There have always been attempts to get Treasury Ministers to appear before individual Committees, but Governments of all persuasions have resisted that and put up the appropriate Secretary of State.

Chris Evans: As a Co-operative Member, it has come to my attention that funding for fan-owned rugby league clubs appears to be under threat. Will the Leader of the House please contact the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with a view to releasing a statement after the recess in order to alleviate those concerns?

George Young: I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s concern with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and ask him to write to the hon. Gentleman, rather than wait until we return after the recess.

Kevin Brennan: May I wish the Leader of the House a pleasant summer recess and ask that, when we return, we have a debate about privatisation? Recent events have convinced me that, sometimes, private concerns can do a more effective job than Government concerns, not least because more Conservative Back Benchers voted against the House of Lords Reform Bill’s Second Reading on Tuesday than voted in favour. May we have a debate about privatising the Government Whips Office—in the interests of public efficiency?

George Young: I think the Government Whips Office is already privatised: it is run by people who have a commitment to enterprise, individuality, private sector growth and the rest. Rather than looking just at Back Benchers, it would be fairer if the hon. Gentleman looked at the votes of the Conservative party as a whole, where he would see that a majority voted for the Bill’s Second Reading.

Tom Blenkinsop: A caravan holiday park business, Tingdene, has continuously, deliberately and in a bullying fashion targeted Hazelgrove caravan owners association in my constituency, because the association has stood up for caravan owners’ consumer rights. May we therefore have a debate to discuss broadening the proposed new residential park home legislation to include holiday caravan parks?

George Young: I think I am right in saying that one of the successful bidders in the ballot for private Members’ Bills made park homes their chosen subject. I very much hope that that Bill makes progress, because we all have constituents who have difficulties with some owners of park home sites, and I very much hope also that if the Bill is not currently configured in a way that
	meets the needs of the hon. Gentleman, there will be a sensible discussion as it proceeds through the House, and that any necessary amendments might be made.

Nicholas Dakin: The Office of Rail Regulation’s proposal to introduce a specific tax on the movement of coal and iron ore was referred to by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers). Will the Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on the measure’s likely impact, if it goes ahead, on the UK economy and on UK energy prices?

George Young: I repeat what I said a few moments ago, and as a former Secretary of State for Transport I am very keen that, wherever possible, we move freight from road to rail. I would be very concerned if unnecessary barriers were put in the way of that transfer. I will raise the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and ask that any letter she sends to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) be sent to the hon. Gentleman as well.

Point of Order

Robert Halfon: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I clarify for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House my question during business questions? The organisation that I spoke about, the trust that owned the hall, did have charitable status, which the Charity Commission revoked on the ground that the organisation had no public benefit and, therefore, no right to be classed as a charity. I urge my right hon. Friend to look again at the issue. I am happy to write to him with the details, because I do think that it is an unfair case of bias against that organisation.

Lindsay Hoyle: We cannot carry on the debate, but I am sure that Government Front Benchers have heard that point, and that correspondence can be sent accordingly.

Court of Justice of the European Union

[Relevant document:  The Ninth Report of Session 2010-12, from the European Scrutiny Committee, Court of Justice of the European Union: amendments to the Statute and Rules of Procedure, HC 86-ix .]

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of the draft Regulation 2011/0901A(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council (amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex 1 thereto) and draft Regulation 2011/0902(COD) (relating to temporary Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal) and, in accordance with section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of draft Regulations 2011/0901A(COD) and 2011/0902(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council.
	The debate covers two draft regulations that reform the Court of Justice of the European Union with the aim of improving its efficiency. The European Scrutiny Committee has described the two regulations as
	“a modest but useful package of reforms”,
	and the Government endorse that verdict.
	This is also the first time that the House has had the opportunity to debate such draft regulations under the new provisions of section 10(1)(d) and 10(1)(e) of the European Union Act 2011. Section 10 covers a small number of articles in the European Union treaties, and its provisions require each House of Parliament to approve a motion on the draft measure concerned before the Government are able, on behalf of the United Kingdom, to vote in support of the measure in Brussels.
	As hon. Members on both sides will know, the role of the European Court of Justice it to ensure that European Union law is observed. It is a key role, and it is only right and proper that Parliament should oversee the Government’s approach to any reforms to that important European institution.

William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend agree that implicit in what he says is the rule of European Union law, but is he also aware that the European Scrutiny Committee, in its report on the recent fiscal compact, made it clear that it did not regard European Union law as having been fulfilled, and that the Government themselves still retain their own position of reserving their views on the legality of the compact? What are the Government doing about that?

David Lidington: I know, not least from my own 90-minute evidence session in front of my hon. Friend’s Committee, how strongly he and other members of the Committee feel about that subject. However, it would be moving beyond the terms of this afternoon’s debate if I responded in detail about the Government’s approach to fiscal union and their decision to reserve their position on the use of the institutions for the implementation of the fiscal compact. Ministers have corresponded about that with the Committee and I am sure that there will be other opportunities for us to go into that matter.

James Clappison: Does that not go to the root of the matter? We are told that the regulation is justified by the growth in the work load of the European Court of Justice. Assuming that there has
	been no change in the litigiousness of members of the European Union, and taking into account EU expansion as well, should we not be given pause for thought that it is the increasing jurisdiction of the ECJ over member countries that lies behind the issue? It is highly material that we should look at the prospective growth of that jurisdiction through the expansion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred.

David Lidington: It is true that every time the competence of the European institutions is enlarged through treaty amendments, the potential case load of the European Court of Justice is also enlarged. However, as I shall come to demonstrate, the reason for these particular reforms is largely to do with an increase in the case load as a result of litigation by private parties, particularly on single market matters. The case load that the reforms are intended to address certainly does not arise out of the negotiation of the fiscal compact by 25 member states last year.

David Nuttall: rose—

David Lidington: I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then I shall make progress.

David Nuttall: My right hon. Friend makes a good point in saying that the ECJ’s increasing work load is often owing to disputes between private organisations. In the past, those disputes would often have been resolved here in London, as a result of contracts providing for the determination to be under English law. Therefore is not the work of European judges replacing the work of British judges?

David Lidington: Under successive Governments, the United Kingdom has supported the principle that we should be part of a single European market with a set of common regulations and legal provisions, because Conservative and Labour Governments alike, and now the coalition Government, have taken the view, backed by British industry for the overwhelming part, that that is to the economic advantage of British businesses—both manufacturers and service providers—the United Kingdom economy and the prosperity of our people.
	Let us look at the justification for the package of measures before us. The House of Lords European Union Committee set out in its report of March 2011 how the work load of the Court had increased substantially in recent years. Between 2007 and 2011, new cases at the European Court of Justice increased by 18%. In paragraph 44 of its report, the Committee noted that
	“We believe that the expansion of the CJ’s jurisdiction into the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice introduced by the Lisbon Treaty, coupled with the increase of EU membership to 27 States, will have an impact on the CJ’s ability to manage its workload. We predict another crisis of workload soon.”
	What has also happened is that the number of cases going to the ECJ on appeal has increased significantly in recent years. For example, in 2008 just seven cases relating to competition law went on appeal to the ECJ; in 2011, the total had risen to 52 such cases. Given the Court’s key role as the arbiter of the single market and the advantage that the United Kingdom’s business community derives from the single market, dealing with the problem of delays and the overload of the Court is in the United Kingdom’s national interest.

James Clappison: rose—

David Lidington: I will give way once more and then I will move on to the details of the reforms.

James Clappison: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. He made the same point—that the Court was of benefit to British businesses because of the enforcement of the single market—in the memorandum supplied to the European Scrutiny Committee. However, in my researches I have not been able to find any such case involving a British company, although there may be such cases.
	Will my right hon. Friend write to me giving chapter and verse of cases involving British companies that have involved the European Court of Justice and the single market? There is the suspicion that the European Court of Justice, as with many other things to do with the European Union, is using the single market as a justification for its intrusion into decision making in areas that have nothing to do with the single market.

David Lidington: I will happily write to my hon. Friend, but I point out to him that just because a case does not involve a British company as one of the parties does not mean that the case is insignificant to British business interests. There might well be a case involving parties from other member states the outcome of which made a considerable difference to the opportunities available to United Kingdom companies.

Roger Williams: The Minister is making a powerful case that the interests of UK business are best served when we have an efficient and properly resourced system of law. There is also the fact that many of the judgments have been delayed, which is to the great detriment of British interests as far as business is concerned.

David Lidington: We can debate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) does so robustly, whether the European Court of Justice should enjoy such widespread jurisdiction. However, what we are talking about is how we should address the problems in the system as it currently exists under treaty—the backlogs and delays, both at first instance and appeal. A system of courts in which justice is denied simply because the system is unable to cope with its work load is not in anybody’s interests.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will the Minister give way on that very point?

David Lidington: Of course I will give way to my hon. Friend, although I will be anxious to make progress thereafter.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend is exceptionally generous, as usual. However, I am not entirely sure that his last point is right. It could be in people’s interests for the Court to be bunged up. If one takes the view that the European Court of Justice is increasingly extending its powers into areas where it ought not interfere, anything that stops it doing that is all to the good.

David Lidington: A court of law and legal system should serve the interests of parties to that legal system. I go back to the old English adage that justice delayed is
	justice denied; my hon. Friend will be familiar with that and no doubt champion it as a matter of principle. I would argue that that principle should apply on a European level as well as on a United Kingdom or English level.
	The reforms that we are discussing involve, first, the creation of a vice-president to assist the president of the Court in their role of managing litigation and overseeing the business of the Court. The vice-president will be appointed from among existing judges; an additional judge will not be required.
	Secondly, there is to be an increase in the number of judges sitting in the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, which generally handles the most sensitive cases. That is to allow broader participation by ECJ judges in general in Grand Chamber cases. It should increase the wider expertise of the Court and ensure greater consistency in how cases are handled. Thirdly, the reforms propose a reduction in the number of presidents of five-judge chambers who have to sit in the Grand Chamber at the same time. That will allow the chamber presidents more time to administer their separate chambers, each of which handles a substantial case load that should, as a consequence of this reform, be enabled to progress more quickly.
	The reforms also include the power to appoint up to three temporary judges to the civil service tribunal, which is the employment tribunal for European Union officials. The problem with the tribunal at the moment is that it has only seven judges, which means that if even one judge is absent for a lengthy period, perhaps because of illness, cases can be delayed. Appointing temporary judges will prevent those delays from occurring. The temporary judges will be appointed from a panel of former judges of the European Court and will be paid only for the days that they actually work; they will not be on a long-term retainer or salary.
	Finally, there is a key reform to the lower court, the General Court, which has a substantial backlog of cases. As is proposed for the ECJ—the upper tier—a vice-president will be created for the General Court, again from among the existing judges, to assist the president in managing litigation.
	The Government have been active in negotiating the details of these reforms, and I am glad to say that because of our efforts two potential reforms about which we had concerns that we explained to the European Scrutiny Committee have now been removed. One of those was the proposal to remove the 10-day so-called period of grace granted to litigants to submit pleadings to the ECJ over and above the standard deadline period. We and other member states argued that removing the period of grace would harm our ability to submit pleadings and damage our national interest. We have protected the period of grace and ensured that not only the Government but, importantly, British businesses that may be party to ECJ cases have the maximum possible time to submit pleadings to the Court.
	The other potential reform was the addition of 12 judges at the General Court. The Council has concluded that that reform requires further consideration and should be reserved for a later date. The rationale for the proposal was, again, the substantial backlog of cases—currently more than 1,300—at the General Court. It was also, in our view, very important that the reform was got right. We wanted to ensure that the arrangements for appointing
	any new judges are fit for purpose and that any increase in the number of judges should be consistent with the requirement for minimal spending in the current economic climate. We argued that any increase in the number of judges should go hand in hand with a programme of efficiency savings in the ECJ’s budget. The removal of the reform from the package at this stage is in line with our interests, but we may return to it at a future date.

Roger Williams: Was there a suggestion that specialist chambers be set up to deal with particular issues? Has the case for that not yet been made?

David Lidington: The idea of specialist chambers is indeed another proposal that came up in the course of negotiations.
	All member states have now accepted that there will need to be further consideration of what could be done further to improve the efficiency of the Court in the longer term. A new group has been set up among officials representing the 27 member states to discuss and recommend potential reforms and, in particular, to address the backlog at the General Court. The group’s remit will include an examination of the potential increase in the number of judges and the way in which such judges might be appointed. I can assure Members that the Government will be an active participant in the group, and we shall argue that any reforms should be based soundly on concrete evidence. We will also finalise our policy on the appointment of any additional judges in the context of the broader discussion about the search for efficiency and reduced spending in the ECJ and in European Union institutions as a whole. It goes without saying that the Government will ensure that the House and, in particular, the Chairman and members of the European Scrutiny Committee, are kept briefed on developments.
	At present, the reforms on the table are modest, but they support the Government’s objectives of trying to increase the efficiency of the European Court of Justice and pave the way for more significant reforms to the General Court at a later stage. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the revised rules of procedure for the European Court of Justice. The Minister said that the Government are happy with what he calls a modest package of reforms that should improve the functionality of the Court without incurring any significant costs. We are pretty much in agreement with his analysis of the revised rules of procedure. We hope that the changes will make the ECJ’s procedure more efficient, and we appreciate that the Court itself was keen for the reforms to be agreed before the partial renewal of judges in October.
	As the Minister outlined, there has been an increase in the Court’s work load, so the reforms are necessary. In its report, the European Scrutiny Committee noted the increased work load and said that it is due to the development of European Union law in new areas and the increase in the number of member states. As the Minister said, in the past year, the number of new cases referred to the ECJ from national courts has increased,
	as has the number of commercial disputes, tax disputes and intellectual property cases. We are concerned that the backlog of cases is gradually continuing to grow.
	It is clear that an enlarged Court requires more streamlined rules. We therefore welcome some of the changes proposed, in particular the removal of the requirement to read the report of the judge-rapporteur at the hearing, and the modifications of the composition of the Grand Chamber to ensure greater consistency. We also welcome the proposal to allow a member state bringing proceedings against another member state to use its own language, rather than that of the defending state. It is, however, questionable whether the reforms go far enough. It is to be hoped that procedural reforms will eliminate some of the delays, but structural reforms might be necessary.
	In his letter to the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister says that a friends of the presidency group will be established to examine wider potential reforms to the Court, including the proposal to increase the number of judges. I listened attentively to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not clear about the Government’s position on the proposal to increase the number of judges in the General Court, and I would welcome clarification of that when he winds up. The proposal was controversial and was dropped by the Danish presidency in order to expedite the reforms we are discussing today.
	The motion refers to the appointment of temporary judges to the EU civil service tribunal. Seven judges serve on that tribunal, which adjudicates disputes between the European Union and its civil servants. The proposal is that temporary judges be appointed in the event that one of the judges must take an extended leave of absence. That administrative change to cover absence seems sensible.
	The Opposition agree with the Minister that the rule changes are modest and welcome. We hope that they will streamline the decision making of the ECJ, as we want no further increase in the backlog of cases. The Court is the arbiter between member states and is key to the effective functioning of the single market, so we also agree with the Government that improving the functionality of the Court will be good for British business operating in the EU. Hopefully, it will prevent delays in the enforcement of single market legislation.
	Both the European Court of Justice and the General Court have proven effective in enforcing competition rules and in ruling against protectionism. It is vital that they continue to do so do so in future. It is important to British business, consumers and workers that both Courts perform their duties as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. That is why we support the motion.

William Cash: The report of the European Scrutiny Committee has been referred to by the Minister.
	I will start by setting out the importance of the proposed reforms and putting them in context. As a practitioner of law over an extended period, I know that the volume of law has been increasing exponentially, particularly since we became a member of the European Union—or the European Community as it was then—in 1972. I do not think that anybody can put an accurate
	figure on the number of pages or statutes that have been effected in this House under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972; suffice it to say that it is monumental.
	The European Court of Justice is being reformed because of its vast work load. That is the problem. We discussed the extension of EU competences a little earlier with the Foreign Secretary. Those competences impact on the daily lives of people not only in the United Kingdom, but across the European Union, and the excessive legislation strangles small and medium-sized businesses. That is all part and parcel of a much deeper problem than the surface question whether the Court needs a few more judges. The Court may need more judges, but that is because of the increase in its work load.
	I will refer very briefly, Mr Deputy Speaker, to the ancient history of codification. No less a person than Justinian had to decide whether the state could cope with the vast increase in law that had taken place. Eventually, he decided to reduce the volume of law from a monumental 3 million lines of legislation to 150,000 lines. His example demonstrates that it can be done.
	The problem is work load and the volume of law. It is perfectly clear from the various papers that have been supplied to us that the length of proceedings, which now averages 17 months, also presents serious problems. The Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, based in Hamburg, has stated that the European Courts are under pressure because of their work load and that the greatest problem facing EU judges is the dramatic rise in the number of cases. The number of preliminary ruling cases increased from one in 1961 to 385 in 2010; and the number of cases at all three EU Courts had risen to 1,406 by 2010. Mr Rösler, who conducted the study, stated:
	“That’s the highest level in the history of the EU Court of Justice.”
	He went on to say that
	“the EU Court of Justice has the biggest workload of any international court”.
	The more law there is, the greater the work load. Mr Rösler believes that the EU’s geographical expansion is just one reason why EU judges face an excessive work load.
	There is also the question whether we are having reform or a facelift. Mr Rösler states that reform is the only way out of the predicament, and his call is backed by the EU judges. In a very unusual public statement, the president of the Court, Vassilios Skouris, highlighted the Court’s excessive work load. He called for 12 new judges to be appointed to the European General Court. That has become a matter of dispute, as the Minister said. The question is what is being done. Mr Rösler mentioned the effect of having 12 more judges—I understand that that has stalled because the actual number has not yet been decided—saying:
	“The expansion of the Court is urgently needed, but does not resolve the multi-faceted issues.”
	In a statement I think some Members may regard as highly controversial, Mr Rösler says that a system of judicial federalism needs to be developed between member states and the European Courts. That is the direction in which all this is going. Above all, he says, the aim
	should be structural reform that establishes a new European judicial architecture. He says that would require the Court of Justice to specialise in relevant areas.
	Mr Rösler goes even further, saying that the EU judiciary must open itself up to its citizens so that they can call upon the Court of Justice directly. It has already been accepted that the Court’s work load is absolutely enormous and arises from the vast increase in the amount of legislation affecting the daily lives of all the people in the EU, including people in the UK. Now, distinguished professors and others who are highly influential are suggesting that the whole process should be opened up to individual litigants. The idea is simply extraordinary.
	Mr Rösler regards new, codified European legislation on conflict of laws and procedural law, which he says will significantly facilitate the enforcement of law before foreign courts and the EU Court of Justice, as a worthwhile long-term objective. There is almost no limit to the ambitions of those engaged in European jurisprudence. The problem is that the more law there is, the greater the distraction from the real problems facing Europe as a whole, which I do not need to go into today because they are well understood by the House.
	We ought also to think about how to streamline the Court’s procedures and maximise its productivity through strategic changes to its personnel. That goes to the heart of the impact of European law. The European Court of Justice lies at the heart of part of the problem that the Foreign Secretary addressed in his statement earlier, and it ought to be put on his agenda.
	The background to the debate is also influenced by the qualifications of the individual members of the Court. The Court is manned by people who, I have no doubt, could be regarded as generally proficient in law, as they are professors and celebrated advocates; the problem is that the members are not drawn from judges alone. That needs to be seriously considered. In the UK, it is unimaginable that members of a senior court at such a level would not be drawn from the senior judiciary. That in itself may be one reason why the European Court’s work load has increased so greatly in recent years.
	The Court of Justice is currently composed of 27 judges and eight advocates-general, who are appointed by common accord of the member states after consultation with a panel that is responsible for giving an opinion on prospective candidates’ suitability to perform the duties involved. I personally believe that the system needs to be tightened up, so that only those with judicial experience are members of the court, rather than it being merely a question of their suitability.
	I would be grateful if the Minister addressed the fact that the great majority of evidence received as the measure was being conceived recommended an increase in the number of judges of the General Court as the best solution to the work load problems. Why did that aspect of the negotiations stall, and what is the Government’s policy on increasing the capacity of the General Court?
	I say that without reference to my other remarks, because the increase in the work load is the consequence of the vast increase in the functions and competences that have streamed like a tsunami to the European Union. I opposed the Lisbon treaty in opposition. I proposed
	amendment after amendment, greatly supported by the current Foreign Secretary, and opposed every provision in the treaty, but the House ended up implementing it because it accepted that ratification had taken place. I did not agree with that, and despite the fact that we were given a cast-iron guarantee of a referendum, we did not have one.
	I have some questions for the Minister. What is the expected cost of the amendments to the statute and the appointment of temporary judges to the civil service tribunal, and does he regard that as good value for money? How much will it cost to establish the office of the vice-president of the Court of Justice, and how will the office benefit a litigant? How much will it cost to establish the office of the vice-president of the General Court, which was previously known as the Court of First Instance, and how will that benefit a litigant? How will altering the composition of the Grand Chamber benefit a litigant? Do any of the reforms introduced by the amendments save money? If so, how much?
	Some influential voices, such as former Advocate-General Jacobs, who will be well known to those who take an interest in these matters, and current Advocate-General Sharpston—both UK appointees—believe there is little scope for reducing the time taken to litigate cases before the Court of Justice through further procedural reform. The Minister might well ask himself why and consider it carefully. The reasons, it is said, include the Court’s translation obligations, the reliance on written procedure and the privileged status of member states to intervene. Does the Minister regard the views of former UK Advocate-General Jacobs and current Advocate-General Sharpston as correct?
	I accept the apology the Minister makes in his letter to me of 11 July, which hon. Members have in front of them. There was uncertainty about what was contained in the provisions. I am grateful that he has made it clear that, on taking legal advice, the matter had to be rectified. The letter states that the
	“appointment of temporary judges to the Civil Service Tribunal…at the CJEU also fell within Section 10 of the Act”.
	The Government believe that the reform will be beneficial, as the Minister has said, and the European Scrutiny Committee takes the view, given the general comments I have made, that this is a modest but useful package of reforms. Well, it is a modest but useful package of reforms which takes account of the overarching volume of legislation that has generated the work load. Some hon. Members desire not merely to repatriate powers, but to reduce the volume of legislation as Justinian was able to do. That was at the end of the Roman empire—the fall, not just the decline. In that context, it might be observed that the last act of the Romans before the Visigoths and the others moved in on Rome was to try desperately to reduce the volume of legislation. Such action is now well overdue.
	In our conclusions, having thanked the Minister for inviting us to comment, we express our regret at the lack of time given to us to do so. Indeed, our report was only published today, so for practical purposes we have all been put under a great deal of time constraint. Having said that, the real question seems to be: by how much can we reduce the amount of law that is leading to the excessive work load and to more judges, which in turn means increased costs? What practical impact will this have on litigants? I trust that he will not encourage the
	idea of personal litigation of the type recommended by the gentleman I quoted earlier. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to answer some of those questions as best he can, difficult though that might be.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I begin by thanking the Minister, because it is down to his initiative that we can have this debate under the European Union Act 2011, which was a major improvement in our procedures to enable anything altering the structures of the Court to come before Parliament and to be the subject of a proper debate and motion. That is all to the good and increases the power of the House in relationship to the EU.
	It is worth reminding ourselves that the European Court of Justice is not a proper, honest, decent court, like our courts are. I remind the House that these are the judges who ruled to their own benefit against that legal maxim that a judge should never be a judge in this own cause. They ruled to increase their own pay, and we should always remember what an improper and rotten court it is. We are dealing here with a small package of measures that will make it a more efficient, if no less improper, court by enabling it to attend to some of its business faster.
	There is a wonderful paragraph from the helpful Library document. It is a quote from the Max Planck Institute, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) cited, about what the European Court is up to:
	“Whether it is buying a car, going on holiday or taking out an instalment loan, few aspects of our everyday lives are conceivable today without reference to European Union law. Countless directives and regulations, which set out the rights of consumers and entrepreneurs, apply not only in international legal undertakings, but also in domestic legal transactions. Which party has the law on its side is increasingly dependent on the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg, which ensures the implementation of European law within the EU.”
	That is a rotten state of affairs.
	There were great debates in the 18th century in this House on the motion:
	“That the power of the Crown has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.”
	In every debate on the EU, we should remind ourselves that the power of the EU has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. That is why I challenged my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe over whether it was a good thing to make the European Court more efficient. In response, he challenged me with a proposition that I would normally accept, because he quoted an ancient British maxim—one probably invented in Somerset, where all good things come from—and it is true that justice delayed is justice denied. But the key word is “justice”, and the European Court of Justice might have that word in its title, but it is not its essence. Its essence is as a political entity. It is seeking to increase the power of a federal European state and turn the EU into a functioning country. That is why the House should be cautious about doing anything that makes it more powerful, because it is fundamentally hostile to us.

Kelvin Hopkins: I have much sympathy with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech in particular. Would it not be a good idea to test
	the water somewhat by seeking to repatriate some powers—some power, even—to Britain, to see what the reaction of the European Union would be? There is much talk of repatriation, but let us take back just one simple power: I would start with the common fisheries policy, as he might know.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is so wise in these matters. We ought to be looking at the inefficiencies in the European Court of Justice and saying, “Could these matters be decided in our own courts?” Is there a way in which, instead of saying, “Give them more power; give them more money; and give them more judges,” we can say, “Let these laws be determined in our country.”?
	It is interesting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone said, that one of the reasons for the increase in the European Court of Justice’s work load is that our courts are sending it judgments for preliminary approval and guidance on what European law says. Would it not be better to repatriate that? Indeed, when we are in the process of negotiating on the European Court and how to make it more efficient, this is surely the opportunity to do so.

William Cash: On the preliminary reference procedure, Mr Rösler says:
	“The judges in Luxembourg constitute a supranational court beyond national jurisdiction, dealing with an incredibly diverse range of issues that no national judge is faced with”.
	He goes on to say that
	“in contrast to national judges, the EU judges are not specialized in specific fields.”
	Is it any surprise that they make such a mess of things?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a rather terrifying thought that we have a court that its own friends say does not have judges with the expertise to rule on issues, but that instead of saying, “Well, let’s decide it in our own courts, where we have judges of proper expertise and standing,” we should be just appointing more second-rate judges to Europe, to get them to sort it out. That cannot possibly be the right approach to take.
	We in the United Kingdom have a very high view of judges. We have been fortunate in this nation to have judges who have been rigorous figures of the law. They have not been political participants. However, the European Court is not of that category or standing. It is part of the operation of the European Union; and, along with the Commission and the European Parliament, it is in a constant battle and struggle to take powers from the nation states. Anything that we do to reform the European Court should mean bringing powers back to our own courts, where they will be judged on their merits and not on a scheme to push forward the programme of ever-closer union.
	It is worth remembering, if anyone questions whether that is true, what happened in the United States in the 19th century, when the Supreme Court was avowedly federal in its approach and the 10th amendment was increasingly ignored to empower the central authorities. The European Court of Justice is doing exactly the same thing. Therefore, I go back to the intervention that I made on the Minister: the more the system is
	gummed up, the better. The fewer opportunities there will be to interfere in the nation state, the more opportunity we will have to repatriate powers to our own systems and our own judges. Therefore, although the matter before us is minor and essentially trivial, let it go through, but let us watch like hawks any further changes that the European Court may seek to make, to ensure that this drift of power to the continent ceases.

David Lidington: I thank the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for their contributions. Let me seek to respond briefly to the various points and questions that have been raised. I will try to divide my response into four parts.
	Let me deal first with costs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stone spoke of. The measures in the two draft regulations will be accommodated within the European Court of Justice’s existing budget. The additional costs will be no more than de minimis. As I said earlier, the two vice-presidents will be existing judges; no additional individuals will be appointed to those posts. The extra judges who will be available to provide sickness cover in the civil service tribunal will be paid only for the days when they are required to be on duty and sitting.
	My next point relates to powers. It is obviously tempting to go beyond the terms of the motion and the draft regulations and have a more general debate about the powers of the European Court of Justice. My hon. Friends the Members for Stone and for North East Somerset spoke with passion about their concerns over the way in which the powers of the ECJ and the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction had been enlarged over recent decades. The trouble is that such a debate would take us on to broader questions about the development of the European Union that do not fall within the scope of the motion.
	I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset that there are certain remedies that he might propose. For example, other hon. Friends advocate changes to the treaties of the European Union, and such changes could seek to impose the kind of constraints that he has in mind. I do not mind saying clearly that, as far as I am concerned, we would all benefit, nationally and in every part of the European Union, from less legislation. We would benefit if there were no culture in institutions, either national or European, to seek a remedy for any ill or injustice through additional laws and regulations, rather than seeking an effective non-legislative remedy.
	I say to my hon. Friend that it would not be right to question the quality of the individuals who serve in the European Court of Justice. As he will know, the treaty and the rules of appointment require that they should be men or women who have served, or who are capable of serving, in senior judicial roles in their member states. Certainly, the men or women who might be nominated as the United Kingdom’s judges at the European Court of Justice are required to have achieved a very high reputation indeed in the judicial and legal professions in this country even to be considered, let alone nominated. Whether we agree or disagree—as individuals or as Governments—with particular judgments of the ECJ, the judges are people of high professional standing.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I would question the judges’ probity on one thing in particular: their ruling that their own pay should be increased, which was fundamentally improper.

David Lidington: My hon. Friend has made his point clearly for the record.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone asked about the risk of further efforts to enhance the powers and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. He referred in particular to the possibility of the introduction of a right to petition the Court and take cases there. I can assure him that, notwithstanding what learned professors might say, no such proposal is on the table at the moment. No such proposal forms part of the regulations before us. The subject has not crossed my desk and it is not a matter of live discussion among Governments at present.
	My hon. Friend also asked about the timing of the debate and expressed concern at what he believed to be an absence of time for the European Scrutiny Committee to consider this matter. I would challenge him on that. Looking back at the record, I see that we provided explanatory memorandums to that Committee at various times during the course of the negotiations: first, on 28 April 2011, then on 24 June 2011, 30 September 2011 and 20 April this year. I wrote to him last week to advise him of the latest developments and to request that the Committee clear these measures from scrutiny.
	As for the most recent developments, we are working against the decision by the Cypriot presidency to table these measures for discussion and decision at a Council meeting in the very near future. My concern in writing to my hon. Friend as I did was to ensure that his Committee was aware of the need for urgency if the Committee and Parliament were to have the opportunity to express their views and, in the case of Parliament, to take a decision about the UK’s approach to these regulations ahead of that Council meeting.
	The final point on which I was questioned—

William Cash: Will the Minister give way?

David Lidington: All right, I will, but then I will move on.

William Cash: My hon. Friend should not show his impatience; that is not a wise thing to show to the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee. I think that his demeanour should be a little more relaxed.
	Let me say simply that I have put a number of questions to the Minister and I can see that he is not going to answer them, so I should be grateful if he wrote to me when he has had a chance to look at the transcript of the debate. As it happens—I do not say this with any stricture—he was talking to the Whip on duty when I
	asked him the questions that had been formulated carefully by our advisers. I should be grateful if he replied to me writing, as he is clearly not going to respond at the moment.

David Lidington: I can assure my hon. Friend that, when it comes to dealing with him, my patience is infinite. I will certainly check the record and I will write to him if there are any points on which we have not given him an adequate answer. I ask him to look at what I have said about the nugatory costs of the measures, because questions on that matter formed a considerable part of the series of questions that he put to me during his speech.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East asked about the Government’s attitude towards the proposal to appoint additional judges to the General Court. My answer is that we do not rule this out. We can see why this is being advocated as a means of reducing the significant backlog of cases at the General Court, but before we agree to an increase in the number of judges, with the additional costs that that would undoubtedly entail, we certainly want to be absolutely clear that every possible efficiency measure had been taken to reduce the General Court’s spending and to improve its productivity. We view this question—and the possible costs arising out of an increased number of judges—as one that needs to be addressed in the broader framework of the financial pressures on the EU and its member states and in the context of the negotiations over annual EU budgets and the multi-annual financial framework.
	Another point in reply to the hon. Lady is that, in addition to our concern about costs, we would want to be satisfied with the judges concerned if additional judges were indeed appointed. The United Kingdom—England and Wales in particular, where a common law system applies—will be concerned as a country to make sure that judges with a knowledge of common law systems are properly represented when cases are considered by the European Court of Justice.
	I have tried to respond to the points raised in the debate, and I hope that the House will now agree to the resolution.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of the draft Regulation 2011/0901A(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council (amending the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Annex 1 thereto) and draft Regulation 2011/0902(COD) (relating to temporary Judges of the European Union Civil Service Tribunal) and, in accordance with section 10 of the European Union Act 2011, approves Her Majesty’s Government’s intention to support the adoption of draft Regulations 2011/0901A(COD) and 2011/0902(COD) of the European Parliament and of the Council.

Draft European Union Budget

Mark Hoban: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 5 June 2012 from HM Treasury on the Statement of Estimates of the Commission for 2013 (Preparation of the 2013 Draft Budget); recalls the agreement at the October 2010 European Council and the Prime Minister’s letter of 18 December 2010 to European Commission President Manuel Barroso, which both note that it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts of Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path; notes that this is a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe, with countries across Europe taking difficult decisions to reduce public spending; agrees that the Commission’s proposed 6.8 per cent increase in European Union spending in 2013 is unacceptable; agrees that the Commission’s proposal for a larger European Union budget is not the way to fix Europe’s problems, and that large savings are feasible without compromising economic growth; notes that the proposed increase would impose unaffordable costs on taxpayers in the UK and other Member States; notes that UK contributions to the European Union budget have also risen in recent years due to the 2005 decision to give away parts of the UK rebate; and so supports the Government in seeking significant savings to the Commission’s proposals across all budget headings and in its strenuous efforts to limit the size of the 2013 European Union budget.

Lindsay Hoyle: I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie).

Mark Hoban: I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the 2013 EU budget.
	As Members will know, the economic climate in the EU has changed dramatically in recent years, and the situation remains fragile. The uncertainty in the euro area is the biggest challenge facing the EU economy, and there is a risk that it will affect growth and jobs in Britain. That is why we have pressed the euro area to address both the immediate challenges and the long-term systemic issues that it faces. In the midst of one of the biggest debt crises to hit Europe, this Government and Governments across the EU have made difficult decisions in order to consolidate their public finances and implement structural reforms.
	The EU budget, funded by EU taxpayers, cannot be immune from the changes that are sweeping across Europe. An ever-increasing EU budget is not the way in which to fix Europe’s problems, and it is time for the EU to live within its means. That requires a strict reprioritisation and the targeting of areas that support growth and reduce the waste and inefficiency that has become characteristic of EU spending.

John Healey: The Financial Secretary mentioned supporting growth. As he will know, as part of the preparation for the EU’s next budget period there are proposals for “transition regions” status, which could benefit at least 11 regions in this country. We in south Yorkshire are aware of the benefits that it could bring by supporting local jobs, businesses and growth. Are the Government in favour of the concept of transition regions?

Mark Hoban: I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point, given that the amendment tabled by a member of his own Front Bench calls for a more restrained budget and given that one of the consequences of a cut in the budget would be a further constraint on spending. Our main priority is to deliver a freeze in the multi-annual financial framework, and we need to establish which measures in the budget are consistent with that. However, we do need to focus on jobs and growth, and the biggest challenges in that regard are often presented by the newer accession states when the gap between their economies and those of countries such as the UK, France and Germany is at its widest. We need to focus on spending in the areas where there is the greatest potential for those countries to yield real fruits in terms of economic growth and jobs.

John Healey: I am not entirely sure whether that was a yes, a no, a maybe, or an “I don’t like to say.” The Financial Secretary will know that the qualification for transition regions status is a GDP that is between 75% and 90% of the EU average. Some parts of our country require that extra help; they need more balanced growth, and support for jobs and businesses. Does the Financial Secretary support the concept—I am not asking about the quantum—of transition regions in the next EU budget period?

Mark Hoban: The negotiations on regional funding are a matter for my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and I am sure that they will respond to the points that the right hon. Gentleman has made. Our overarching priority is to ensure that our spending in the EU gives us value for money, and the overall settlement for the next seven years and the multi-annual financial framework must reflect that. He may wish to participate in the debate on the preparations for the framework which will take place in European Standing Committee B when the House returns in September. That is one of the many opportunities for debate provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) in his role as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mark Hoban: I will, but then I must make more progress.

Chris Heaton-Harris: According to a paper produced recently by the Fresh Start group, of which I am co-chairman, if we repatriated structural funds among countries whose GDP is more than 90% of the EU average, we would be able to spend £4 billion more—money that would come directly from the Government—on growth in the United Kingdom without having to go through the middleman of the European Union.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. We need to view expenditure issues in the context of the impact of our contribution and how it is linked with the rebate, but I do not want this to turn into a debate entirely about structural funds. There will be many other opportunities to discuss those.

John Healey: rose—

Mark Hoban: Let me make some more progress. My hon. Friend described the EU as a middleman. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman is asking me to be a middleman between him and my hon. Friend, so I shall press on.
	As Members know, the size of the annual budget is guided by the multi-annual financial framework, which is equivalent to a seven-year spending review. This was agreed by the previous Government in 2005, and set a rising trajectory for EU spending to 2013. Under the ceilings negotiated by the previous Government, the 2013 EU budget may increase by 14% in payments compared with the 2012 budget. That has encouraged the Commission to seek even more EU spending. In the current economic climate, the framework negotiated by the previous Government is out of date. We have been seeking to put right the mistakes made in the past by making every effort to rein in EU spending in recent years.
	This year, however, the European Commission has again shown that it is hopelessly out of touch with the mood of Europe’s taxpayers. On 25 April, it proposed the largest recent increase in the EU budget: a 6.8% increase in 2013, taking total spending to €137.92 billion. It claims that the increase will support growth and jobs while also allowing the Commission to catch up on payments on programmes announced in previous years. We are acutely aware of the risk a budget increase of this scale poses to the UK’s contribution. At a time when we are tightening our belts in the UK, an increase in the order of 6.8% would cost the UK, taking into account the rebate, roughly €1 billion more than this year. Of course, this is not helped by the previous Government’s abatement giveaway in 2005, a decision that is costing today’s taxpayers an extra £10 billion over this Parliament. The amendment seeks to airbrush that from the record.

Graham Stringer: I agree that a 6.8% increase is unacceptable given the current economic situation, but why are the Government settling for a flat budget, when local government in this country is suffering cuts of 30%? Why is Europe getting a better deal than Manchester or Plymouth?

Mark Hoban: That is an important point, and I shall address it shortly.
	Our response to the Commission’s inflation-busting proposal has been robust. At a time when Governments across Europe are making difficult decisions on public spending, a 6.8% increase in EU spending in 2013 is completely unacceptable. First, the economic circumstances have changed dramatically, and the Commission cannot ignore the facts. By 2014, the level of public debt across the 27 member states will be over 50% more than it was back in 2007, two years after the last seven-year budget was agreed. Secondly, a larger EU budget will not solve the eurozone crisis. A smaller, leaner and better-targeted budget is the best way to drive growth across the EU.
	We have identified many areas of EU spending that are ripe for reform. It is time to cut the quangos, EU staff pay and programmes that offer low added value or are poorly implemented. For example, the Commission set itself the target of reducing its headcount by 1% this year. Although 286 posts have been cut—equivalent to a 0.7% reduction—that has been offset by the creation of 280 posts for Croatia’s accession. There has been no
	attempt to redeploy staff to meet the needs of Croatia’s accession. As ever, the Commission’s knee-jerk reaction is simply to increase the number of people employed in the EU. As a consequence, this year the Commission has cut just six posts. We estimate that if it had cut the headcount by 1%, it could have saved €45 million.
	The total salary bill for the EU institutions’ staff in 2011 was over €3.5 billion, more than 2.8% of the Commission’s budget proposal for the year, and more than double the amount spent on freedom, security, justice and citizenship. Staff at EU institutions, who may have lived in Brussels for more than 30 years, continue to be paid an extra 16% “expat allowance” on top of an already generous salary, and a teacher at the European school is paid twice the average UK teacher pay.

William Cash: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and I take it seriously. I do not in any way suggest cynically that the Government are merely trying and not succeeding, but when I see the words
	“seeking significant savings…across all budget headings and in…strenuous efforts to limit the size”,
	I feel that there is another answer. In the light of his powerful argument, which has not yet even finished, there is a strong case for our saying that we insist, rather than merely seek, and for saying, “We will not pay any more. We will refuse to do so if you are not prepared to do something about it.” This really is getting out of control, as is the work load of law that we discussed in the previous debate.

Mark Hoban: I will come on to deal with the process of negotiation that we are going through, but my hon. Friend will, of course, be aware that the EU budget is determined by qualified majority voting, whereas the framework is determined by unanimity. As he said, he has practised law for some time, so I am sure that he would not be encouraging us to break the law—

William Cash: rose —

Mark Hoban: Or perhaps he is.

William Cash: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for walking straight into that one. He knows the formula that I have adopted in the past, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972. I have put it to the Prime Minister, and the European Scrutiny Committee report endorsed it as a potential weapon. I simply say to my hon. Friend that there comes a point when we simply have to draw a line and we may have to override European law. The EU breached the law with the stability and growth pact and the fiscal compact. I think it is about time we started showing a bit more mettle.

Mark Hoban: I have to say that I always thought it was appropriate to obey the law, even in circumstances where we would perhaps rather not do so. We need to take our obligations seriously, but that does not in any way weaken our resolve to get the best possible deal for British taxpayers.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am sure that the Minister has as much backbone as Margaret Thatcher had. She went along to European Councils and said, “Give us back our money.” I think that is the line he should take.

Mark Hoban: Indeed, I think that the achievement of the rebate at Fontainebleau was a signal achievement of her time in office, but of course that was done in the context of a multi-annual financial framework debate, and we are going through that process at the moment with our European partners. We have made it clear that the rebate is one of our red lines, and we will continue to stick to that, in the same way that we have been very clear about our outright opposition to the financial transaction tax. We will show backbone in these debates, but let us identify those opportunities where our power and leverage is at its highest, to maximise the price that we want in return.

Christopher Leslie: While the Minister is in such a fine and confident mood, can he give a commitment that the UK Government will settle for nothing less than a real-terms reduction in the budget for the multi-annual financial framework—that spending review seven-year period?

Mark Hoban: I have to say that talk is very cheap on the Opposition Benches, as the amendment demonstrates. They may talk things up, but what was the previous Government’s record? It was to give away our rebate in the hope of some vague common agricultural policy reform. So let the negotiations continue and we will come to the House when they are concluded; we have been very clear about what we are seeking to achieve.

Christopher Leslie: Ah!

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman may say “Ah”, but the reality is that when his party was in office it gave away the rebate and allowed a spending increase that permitted the EU budget to rise by another 11% this year. I do not think the Labour party’s record in government is anything that the Opposition should be proud of or crowing about.

David Nuttall: Perhaps I can help the Minister. In 2010, I asked about the cost to the UK taxpayer of the reduction in rebate negotiated by the previous Government and was told that the full cost, now that the rebate is fully phased in, is £2 billion a year. Will he confirm that?

Mark Hoban: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is spot on and it will cost this country £10 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. That is the disgraceful way in which our rebate was given away for some review of the CAP that never materialised.

Ian Davidson: As the Minister will be aware, I am no great defender of the previous Government’s position on these matters. However, simply pointing to the previous Government’s position is not answering the question. Will this Government make it clear that they will not agree to an increase in the money going to the EU? Yes or no?

Mark Hoban: We are going through the process and we have been very clear about our red lines for own resources and the rebate. We have tried to reach a common position with our allies on the size of the budget and of the multi-annual financial framework. We have been very clear that, at a time when member states across the
	EU are being asked to curb their spending, the EU should play its role in doing that, too. That is what we are seeking to do, not just in the budget but in the financial framework. Just as we have delivered spending restraint at home, we are urging the case for delivering spending restraint in the EU. We have argued forcefully that we need to tackle the chronic over-budgeting and strictly prioritise EU spending. We need significant cuts in the Commission’s spending and I think that they are possible without impeding efforts to boost growth.

Kelvin Hopkins: I, like many Members, have criticised the decision in 2005 to give away part of our rebate in return for a non-existent reform of the CAP. The Government make much of that, but as I have said more recently, if they really are concerned, why not say to the European Union that we want the £2 billion a year back? We might not be able to recoup all the money that has been lost already, but at least let us get the rebate back to where it should have been had that 2005 agreement not occurred.

Mark Hoban: The hon. Gentleman makes a proposal. We are in the early stages of the discussion on the next multi-annual financial framework. Clearly, maintaining our rebate is a key priority in that debate and we will continue to work to protect the rebate, using our veto if necessary.
	There are things that we can do to support growth without massive increases in spending. We can deepen the single market, sign free trade agreements with third countries and reduce regulatory burdens. The Commission claims that bills must be paid, but its proposals simply create new bills for future generations to pay by announcing new programmes this year. It cannot complain on the one hand about needing more money to pay bills due this year when it is also making fresh promises that will have to be paid for in future years. We expect the Commission to look for savings in programmes that either are not under way or represent poor value for money, rather than simply asking member states and their taxpayers to pay more.
	It is time that Brussels woke up to the economic reality that member states face and started helping us to tackle our debts at home. Following the Commission’s proposal in April, we have been working with other member states to drive down the Council’s opening position on the EU budget but, as Members will be aware and as I mentioned in response to the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), the Council’s position on the annual budget negotiation is agreed by QMV, not unanimity. Following lengthy negotiations, the position in Council limits growth in spending to 2.79% on 2012 levels. We voted against that in Council because it is simply too high, but we must recognise that it is an unhappy compromise. A higher increase would have been blocked by net contributors such as ourselves and a lower increase would have been blocked by net recipients. Each, in different circumstances, have a qualified majority.
	The outcome reached in Council cuts €5.2 billion off the Commission’s proposals and saves the UK taxpayer about £500 million. It is larger than the spending cut that saved us €3.6 billion last year and is €11.3 billion lower than the ceiling of EU spending agreed by the last Labour Government, saving the UK around
	£1.1 billion. Within the overall budget we have slashed the Commission’s proposed increase for the CAP by €490 million.
	The debate on the budget will continue. We now have a period when we have to discuss the budget with the Council and Parliament and when we will come under pressure from both the Commission and Parliament to increase spending and move away from the 2.79% increase agreed in Council. That is why we have worked with France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Finland and Denmark, not only outlining our disappointment with the 2.79%, but making it clear in a statement made at a meeting earlier this week that further increases to EU spending should not be agreed later this year. That sends a clear signal to the Commission and the Parliament that they should not expect the Council to compromise in budget discussions later this year, and it is a reminder that we will continue to take a tough line on the multi-annual financial framework and on any spending increases proposed for the 2012 budget.
	It takes a bit of barefaced cheek for the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) to table an amendment that deletes reference to the fact that Labour gave away our rebate in 2005. It is an attempt to hide Labour’s record in office. It gave away that rebate in return for a review of CAP that did not take place, at a cost, as I said earlier, of £10 billion to British taxpayers. It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had recognised the serious mistake that had been made by Tony Blair and the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) in giving away our money.
	In his amendment the hon. Gentleman talks about trying to make friends and secure allies, but he was the campaign manager for the right hon. Gentleman—something that is not often quoted in the right hon. Gentleman’s biographies—who attempted not go to ECOFIN to build alliances with other Finance Ministers to help to get a satisfactory outcome for our budget rebate; the man who did not even turn up for the public signing of the Lisbon treaty, and who wanted to do it in the dark, which shows an inability to create alliances. We will take no lessons from the Labour party on the need to create alliances with other member states. As we have clearly demonstrated with the agreement that we have reached on how the future negotiations on this year’s budget will proceed, we can and do build alliances and successfully impact the course of policy development in the European Union.

Kelvin Hopkins: I do not really agree with the amendment, because it seems to suggest that the Prime Minister is some sort of militant Eurosceptic, which is far from the truth. I would like him to take a stronger line.

Chris Heaton-Harris: rose—

Mark Hoban: I do not think that comment needs much response, so I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Chris Heaton-Harris: My hon. Friend is being a bit soft on the Opposition, because their amendment is absolutely pathetic. It is like student politics, trying to re-write a bit of history and deny the past. It is quite pathetic, because they signed up to the rules by which this Government have to negotiate.

Mark Hoban: My hon. Friend is spot on. It is absurd to try to re-write history and deny that it is because of the actions taken by the previous Government that we have a real challenge in curbing EU spending. It is because they were soft in their negotiations on the rebate and on the level of EU spending across the financial framework that we are spending more than we ought to be spending. It is not just the £10 billion that we have lost as a consequence of the rebate. They negotiated a spending ceiling for this year that is £11 billion higher than the Commissions proposals, so we could face an even bigger bill as a consequence of the weakness of the previous Government. To try to use this amendment to airbrush history lets the Opposition down and shows how unfit they are for office.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) suggests that this is tit-for-tat student politics, but the Government constantly refer to the 2005 budget settlement—which I agree was wrong—and then propose to do nothing about it.

Mark Hoban: Unlike the Opposition, who were prepared to sacrifice our rebate for some sort of illusory review of spending, we stand firm. It is one of our red lines. In the same way, we stand firm on the financial transaction tax. That is why we vetoed it. We have cut half a billion euros off the CAP budget this year, which is much more concrete than some review that cost us £10 billion.

John Redwood: rose —

Mark Hoban: I give way to my right hon. Friend, but then I must make some progress and allow others to speak in this short debate.

John Redwood: What would the member states that want a high budget say if the UK Government pointed out that public sector wages and benefits in Greece and Spain are having to be cut in cash terms because the EU will not cut its own budget? When there is so much waste and programmes that are not very important, one would think it was much easier and preferable to cut those.

Mark Hoban: My right hon. Friend needs to reflect on the fact that there are, crudely, two groups of member states: those that are net contributors to the EU budget, such as the UK, Germany, the Netherlands and France; and those that have no incentive to curb the size of the budget because they are net recipients. That is one of the reasons there was a tension in the Council debate on this year’s budget and, effectively, two blocking minorities: one if the budget settlement were too low and the other if it were too high. We are making the case across Europe that we need to curb spending and that the money is spent much better at home than through Brussels. We have a group of like-minded allies on that, although not all member states see it in the same way. I think that we need continually to send the message that there are better ways to boost growth in Europe than simply by spending more taxpayers’ money, whether it comes from Belgian, Greek or British taxpayers.

John Redwood: But they need to be educated, because in order to get money out we also have to put money in, so higher EU spending affects all member states adversely, not just those that make a net contribution.

Mark Hoban: In the dynamics of budget debates, the net recipients see that they have a net benefit from increased EU spending, rather than a net cost, which we have. That is one of the driving forces behind their negotiating position. We are taking the argument to them, engaging with them, explaining some of the problems with EU spending and trying to get the EU back on track. Let us wean people off the idea that simply spending more is the answer to our economic problems and find concrete ways in which Europe can contribute to growth without spending more of our taxpayers’ money.
	The Government have taken a tough stand in negotiating this year’s budget and are working with like-minded member states to curb increases in EU spending. We are hampered by the fact that the rebate was given away by the previous Government, which cost the taxpayer dear, but we are trying to recover that money. I urge hon. Friends to vote against Labour’s amendment if it is put to a vote and to support our motion.

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move amendment (a), at line 15, leave out from “States” to the end and add
	“notes that the UK’s ability to negotiate a satisfactory European Union budget deal has been weakened by the Prime Minister’s failure to secure allies for a more prudent settlement in this qualified majority decision; and so calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the 2013 Budget and the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework are reduced in real terms.”
	It is always interesting to follow the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. His motion, parts of which we agree with, states that the multi-annual financial framework—a rather clumsy phrase, but essentially a seven-year spending review for EU budgets from 2014 to 2020—needs to be on a sustainable path. Of course that is true. It is also absolutely true, as the motion states, that these are times of ongoing economic fragility in Europe. However, the motion does not mention that fact that, sadly, that is more the case in the UK under this Government.
	The motion mentions difficult decisions having to be taken, but falls short when it comes to the actual matters at hand. The Minister spent almost half an hour trying to throw mud and allegations at the previous Government about what happened several years ago, but said hardly a word about what he was doing about the budget settlement for 2013 and even less about the big decision on the seven-year spending review period—a decision, incidentally, on which the Government have a veto. We are coming to that critical period of time when he and the Prime Minister in particular are potentially at their most influential, with leverage over what happens with that budget, but when we tried to get a simple answer from the Minister on whether he agreed that the 2013 budget and the multi-annual financial framework should be reduced in real terms, answer came there none. He said, “Well, we’ll try our best to do the right thing.” The motion states that the proposed 6.8% increase is “unacceptable”, but that is simply too weak. Not going for the 6.8% increase is a no-brainer. Where is the Government’s backbone?
	The motion was tabled only yesterday, so it is no surprise that many hon. Members may not have seen that this crucial debate is taking place.

David Nuttall: rose —

Christopher Leslie: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is, as ever, in his place.
	If people realised how weak the Government were being in their negotiating stance, they would be totally appalled.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The hon. Gentleman is very reasonable in all these matters and of course he wants answers from the Government, but in that spirit of frankness, does he personally regret the loss of £10 billion to the UK Government by giving away the rebate? I know he was not personally responsible for that.

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has to realise that the European Union was going through a totally different era of accession countries and enlargement. Now, we are in a post-financial crisis era, in which it is absolutely clear that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) said, serious spending cuts are taking place in our domestic economy and budget. Many of our constituents want pro-job, pro-growth and pro-stimulus measures to be priorities here in the UK, and they feel aggrieved that some administrative budgets in the EU will continue to roll forward without the UK Government showing the restraint that they ought to show while they are at the height of their potential negotiating powers—hence the amendment that we have tabled.
	Despite the Financial Secretary to the Treasury’s sudden animation when I asked him what exactly the Government are doing, the motion does not set out clearly the view, which ought to be and would be shared by all hon. Members, that the budget and the multi-annual financial framework should be reduced in real terms. It is a simple statement that would help the Government in their negotiations, and that is why the House should support the amendment.

David Nuttall: Some of us will oppose the amendment on the basis that it, too, does not go far enough, because it talks about reducing the budget merely in real terms. The question I therefore pose is: would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the budget increased in cash terms?

Christopher Leslie: The hon. Gentleman was perfectly free to table his own amendment, and he pitches a perfectly respectable position. I thought that it was important to draw the Government into adopting a stronger stance, and a reduction in real terms is, at the very least, the place where we need to see the Government, but we could not get them even to that point. He has seen the motion; it falls short in so many ways.
	Real-terms cuts are required now to the EU administrative budget, because in the UK we are in a double-dip recession, thanks in part to the Government’s failure on economic growth. The economy shrank in the last quarter of 2011 by 0.4%, and in the first quarter of this calendar year by 0.3%. Borrowing hit £18 billion in May, up £3 billion on the same month last year, and pressures on the UK’s finances are increasing: domestic tax revenues have fallen and income tax receipts are 7.3% down on the year to May. Today the Office for Budget Responsibility, in its fiscal sustainability report, cites projections suggesting that the public finances are likely to come under pressure in the longer term, and states:
	“In the absence of offsetting tax increases or spending cuts this would widen budget deficits over time and eventually put public sector net debt on an unsustainable upward trajectory.”
	There is much more evidence than ever before of the need for us to strengthen the Government’s negotiating stance. That is why it is just not good enough for the Government to say, “There’s not much we can do about it. It’s a qualified majority vote this year. We’re in a terribly difficult position,” and why in our amendment we have, sadly, had to point out that the Government have failed to win alliances for a tougher position on the budget. That is where we are today.
	There was the phantom veto in December last year, when nothing was actually vetoed—everything went through with the agreement of the other EU countries, and the Prime Minister succeeded simply in alienating the UK’s negotiating position. Now, when we need to make strong arguments about reducing budgets, few are listening and open to ideas because of the stance taken by the Prime Minister in those negotiations.

Kate Hoey: I want whoever is in power in this country to negotiate over our budget in a much tougher way. Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the only way for us to get the European Union to take us seriously is to say that we will not pay any more than what we think is a fair contribution and increase? Indeed, given all the waste, there should be not an increase, but a decrease.

Christopher Leslie: That is why we need to change the approach of Ministers in negotiations. We have to come to a settlement. This year, we are on the cusp of Ministers having a veto power over the seven-year spending review period. This is the moment when we need them to be particularly firm.

Ian Davidson: Does my hon. Friend feel so strongly about making sure that the agreement we strike with Europe has the support of the people of Britain that he thinks the budget settlement should be the subject of a referendum? That would be an ideal way to determine the long-term budget—the people themselves voting in a referendum on whether they are prepared to accept it.

Christopher Leslie: I see the tempting avenue down which my hon. Friend wants to go. I am not sure that it is necessarily good to budget by referendum. It would be simple for the Chancellor, the Prime Minister and the Minister to firm up their position and set out things much more clearly than they have in the motion. I urge hon. Members to look at the airy-fairy fudging language of the motion today—and going forwards, which the Minister does not like to talk about.
	The Minister was right to draw on the Financial Times analysis, including in pointing out the reduction of just six administrative staff from the 41,000 EU posts. Some increases for pensions, for schooling allowances for EU officials and even for some of those extra accession activities in relation to Croatia, are still pencilled in by the Commission. I do not think that the administrative budget proposals on the table are justified. Instead, we should be reprioritising the resources paid to the EU budget so that they are sweated more effectively for a pro-growth, pro-jobs position—looking at energy markets, high-speed broadband and the infrastructure and structural
	fund changes that need to be made. I do not think that the Government have appreciated the strength of feeling on this matter.

William Cash: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman used the phrase “strength of feeling”. What is his strength of feeling about the fact that every justification for proposing an increase of 6.8%, in all the papers that I have read as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee—everything in the European Parliament and the multi-annual financial framework discussions in which I took part a few months ago—is, “We need to do it because of the Lisbon treaty”? Will the hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Opposition, now accept that the Lisbon treaty was a great mistake?

Christopher Leslie: No. Some commitment appropriations are certainly being pencilled in—“We can’t undo the budget because of previous commitments.”—but almost an equal number of appropriations are new programmes that the European Commission could vary and change. I am all for expenditure at European level and doing our part collectively to boost and stimulate economic growth, but there is not sufficient justification for some of the continued administrative back-office areas of expenditure that simply do not help at this time, especially when we have so many economic difficulties in the UK.
	My question to the Minister is very simple: what exactly is the Government’s position? Are they in favour of a real-terms reduction in the budget or not? The Minister would not say. I urge his hon. Friends to try to pin down the Government on that, because we are at a crucial juncture. From reading the reports this week in The Guardian about a deal being done whereby we will not touch reform of the common agricultural policy, for example, I get the sense the Prime Minister likes an easy life with business as usual and wants to continue in that vein.

Kelvin Hopkins: I entirely agree that the Prime Minister wants an easy life as regards the CAP. On behalf of the European Scrutiny Committee, I recently attended a meeting in Brussels about CAP reform where I think I was the only voice calling for restraint; most of the others were calling for more spending on the CAP. What are we doing about it?

Christopher Leslie: Although changes to that 40% chunk of the budget have been made, fundamental reforms must still be on the table. The Prime Minister should not wave the issue away so readily.
	The Prime Minister and the Government must build some radical alliances, because the 2013 budget is decided by qualified majority voting. They must also strengthen their backbone on the seven-year spending review. This will be a key test for the Government. We know that they just want to look backwards, but it is important that the Minister takes some responsibility, because he is in the driving seat now. The Government must focus not only on the rebate but on ensuring that budgets are set at the right and prudent level. We believe that real-terms reductions can be achieved now and for the future, but the motion falls short of that. That is why we tabled our amendment, which I commend as the best way to strengthen the Government’s backbone.

Chris Heaton-Harris: This subject has been omnipresent throughout my political career. For 10 years, I served on the European Parliament’s Budgets Committee and Budgetary Control Committee.

Andrew Percy: You get less for murder.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Yes, indeed.
	I am very keen that the Government get their principles in line and their priorities straight. I want to explain why the amendment tabled by the Opposition is complete rubbish and to give the Minister a feel for why many Conservative Members think that we need to be doing slightly more, in a slightly stronger way, to achieve the aims that I think we all agree on, given that the European budget is way too high.
	This year is important in budgetary terms because 2013 is the last year of the current multi-annual financial framework. The work that is done now on the 2013 budget will hold firm for next multi-annual financial framework, within which the Commission is bidding for a lot more money. That is significant for the United Kingdom.
	The Commission raises this money in a number of ways: direct payments from national Governments based on each country’s gross national income, a levy on each national Government that takes a slice of their VAT income, customs duties on various imports from outside the EU, and levies on sugar production. That accounts for about 99% of the budgeted income of the European Commission. To put that into scale, in 2010 the UK’s gross contribution to the EU budget was €14.66 billion and we received back €6.75 billion, equating to a net contribution of €7.91 billion.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend mentioned the repatriation of funds to the UK. The net figure that he cites assumes that the European Union spends money in the UK in a way that we would like, but that is not a fair assumption.

Chris Heaton-Harris: That is a correct assumption. A number of those projects would not have been financed by this Government or by previous Governments, so the money is being diverted into different things. That is why the last Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, mooted the idea of repatriating those moneys.

Andrew Percy: I agree that the Labour amendment is total nonsense. Is it not true that a lot of money is being spent on infrastructure projects in parts of the European Union that are wealthier than the area that I represent, where a great deal of Government funding is being cut? That is completely unacceptable to my constituents.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a difficult ask for us to explain to our constituents why no money is forthcoming for reasonable projects in our areas, when we are giving money to richer areas across the European Union through the regional structural funds. That is an aberration that we should look at seriously.
	We were the second largest net contributor to the European Union in 2010. Germany was ahead of us with €11.95 billion. Behind us were France with €6.48 billion and Italy with €5.84 billion. Obviously, Italy is not the richest country in the world at the moment, so it, too, is trying to do something about its net contribution. The largest net recipients in 2010 were Poland with €8.17 billion, Greece with €3.44 billion and Spain with €3.1 billion. So there are lots of fiscal transfers across the 27 member states.
	Many other costs are hidden in the European Union budget.

David Nuttall: The figures that my hon. Friend quotes show that, in essence, we are transferring the entirety of our net contribution to Greece and Spain.

Chris Heaton-Harris: If it was done as a simple transaction, that would be the case.
	The Commission’s budgetary expenditure is divided into five headings. “Sustainable Growth”, which mainly involves the EU structural funds, and “Preservation and Management of Natural Resources”, which relates to agriculture and the environment, are the biggest items and accounted for 87% of EU spending in 2012. “Citizenship, freedom, security and justice”, which relates to social policy, crime and policing, and “The EU as a global player”, which involves foreign policy issues, were the smaller items of the budget. The heading, “Administration”, relates to the finances of the staff of the European Commission and other institutional expenditure, such as that of the European Parliament, the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee and various other EU agencies and quangos.

Kate Hoey: I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s attention has been drawn to the wonderful little DVD that has been sent to a number of Members by Marta Andreasen, who has done a terrific job of showing all the waste that has gone on and how massive amounts of taxpayers’ money are being wasted. If we stopped that waste, we would not have to increase the budget, but could cut it. Would he like to ensure that every Member of Parliament can see the DVD?

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is not often that I would commend anything to do with a politician from the UK Independence party. However, if we look at the front page of the Financial Times from 1 August 2002, we see sitting beside Marta Andreasen at the press conference one of the MEPs for the East Midlands, who is now the MP for Daventry. She was the first person to hold the role of chief accountant of the European Commission who had an accountancy qualification. I am very keen that her expertise is shared. I have seen the DVD and it is well worth looking at.
	The Minister set out some obstacles to the reform of the budget, and they are great. When there are big vested interests, with big countries getting way more money out than they will ever put in, there is no chance of reducing the budget under qualified majority voting. As I have tried to explain, we are one of the biggest net contributors, and we will continue to be so way into the future. However, we will always be outvoted on budgetary matters under qualified majority voting, because more countries gain from our expenditure than pay themselves.
	Blocs exist to protect certain things. There is the bloc of net gainers, but France, which is a net contributor, exists in another bloc to protect one of the big areas of spending: the common agricultural policy. It does not want any major changes to the CAP, because that is how it diminishes its net payments to the EU. With such vested interests built in, reform of the European budget is much easier said that done, as the Opposition prove in their amendment.
	Another problem with the EU budget is that its own auditors do not sign it off. This is the 17th consecutive year in which the European Court of Auditors, having checked the legality of EU spending, has refused to give it what is called a positive statement of assurance. Essentially, it has refused to sign off the accounts. As the Financial Secretary said, we must consider that alongside the fact that the European Commission constantly asks for much more money to spend but then cannot spend it properly. Until recently, it was running up massive surpluses in its own accounts.
	There are also aberrations that people do not like. The latest is that we are told that EU chiefs are splashing out on a new £350 million headquarters, at a time when everybody else is having to cut their budgets. That new headquarters, by the way, is in Luxembourg, where MEPs no longer go because they are based in Brussels and Strasbourg. There is obviously too much money in the system. The case for reform is therefore greater now than it has ever been.
	Although the European Council will not formally adopt its position on the European Commission’s proposed EU budget for 2013 until 26 July, member states’ ambassadors to the EU reached a deal on it yesterday, as the Financial Secretary mentioned. The Commission has proposed an overall 6.8% increase in payment appropriations compared with 2012, which amounts to about £7.2 billion—a decent sum. As he said, the member states’ position agreed yesterday means a £2.9 billion increase in payments. That is an increase of 2.79%, which can be compared with the EU inflation rate of 1.9%.
	The Financial Secretary and I know that the UK, the Netherlands and Sweden all oppose the deal and will vote against it at the Council on 26 July. However, if we are the only three states to do so, the budget will be adopted by a qualified majority of countries in the blocs that I outlined, which want to receive more than they put in. If the estimated UK gross contribution of 11.3% to the 2012 EU budget were replicated, under yesterday’s deal the UK would pay about £12.2 billion gross into the budget next year.
	Essentially, we are just about to increase the EU budget, and our part of that increase is £330 million. That would pay a year’s basic salary to 18,500 Army privates, the average basic salary to 10,500 NHS-qualified nurses, or a year’s basic salary to 12,500 police constables.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is providing some extraordinarily insightful and useful information about the absurdities of the EU. When the Financial Secretary was asked to be a bit tougher, he made great play of always having to obey the law. We are law makers, so of course we agree, but can the hon. Gentleman think of any organisation in the UK that would hand over £100, let alone £12 billion, to an organisation that cannot get its accounts audited?

Chris Heaton-Harris: No, I cannot. One point that I am trying to make is that, if we want to be stronger and to cause a bit of upset among our European partners, we could dig our heels in. The Government are doing what they can, while abiding by the letter and spirit of the law, but we could change the face of public services in the UK with just the increase in our contribution to next year’s budget. It is therefore perhaps worth digging our heels in that bit harder and threatening to do something that might be against the letter of the law. There would be a relatively large amount of public approval for such actions in respect of an organisation that has not had its accounts signed off for 17 years, as the hon. Gentleman says.
	There would be more public approval for such actions if people knew what the money is spent on. I shall speak for just one more minute, because I know other hon. Members wish to speak, and outline a handful of things that the European budget goes on. Total EU spending in 2012 on quangos and agencies, which the Minister mentioned, was about €2.48 billion. Some agencies and quangos completely duplicate other bodies that serve the EU and members states, such as the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions, which the European Commission is meant to consult but which no one has ever heard of, apart from those illustrious members of our communities that enjoy going on the monthly trips to serve on them. We could cut those and save €215 million straight away, but British Governments of either political complexion have never suggested it.
	There are two human rights agencies. We could cut at least one of them, saving €15 million. Four agencies are involved in workplace and environment issues. We could cut a number of those and save €50 million. If we dig and delve deeply enough, we find that each EU Commission budget line funds all sorts of things that it probably should not. Hundreds if not thousands of non-governmental and other organisations get money from the EU budget. The have become slightly too close to the EU and should question whether that helps them to get their point across, even if it helps them in budgetary terms. Greenpeace is not one such organisation—it refuses to take any money from any governmental institution.

Ian Davidson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of how the system operates? The EU gives money to organisations that it has established, so that they can lobby the EU to spend money on their aims.

Chris Heaton-Harris: To illustrate exactly that point, I shall quote the reasons Greenpeace gives for not taking money for governmental institutions:
	“Greenpeace does not solicit or accept funding from governments, corporations or political parties. Greenpeace neither seeks nor accepts donations that could compromise its independence, aims, objectives or integrity… Greenpeace relies on the voluntary donations of individual supporters, and on grant support from foundations.”
	I take EU lobbying by Greenpeace way more seriously, because it comes from the heart and not from an EU budget line.
	My next example is the LIFE+ programme budget line, which funds, among other groups, Avalon, which co-ordinates activities and lobbies on behalf of sustainable rural development in central and eastern European
	regions; BirdLife Europe; CEE Bankwatch; Climate Action Network Europe; Coalition Clean Baltic; Danube Environmental Forum; EUCC Coastal and Marine Union; Eurogroup for Wildlife and Laboratory Animals; EUROPARC; the European Environmental Bureau; European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation; European Federation for Transport and Environment; European Landowners Association; European Water Association; Federation of Associations for Hunting and Conservation of the EU; FERN; Friends of the Earth Europe, which constantly lobbies hon. Members on all sorts of things; Health and Environment Alliance; International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements EU group; International Friends of Nature; International Network for Sustainable Energy; Justice and Environment; and the Mediterranean Information Office for Environment, Culture and Sustainable Development. The list goes on. Just one budget lines funds all those organisations.

William Cash: On a broader question, will my hon. Friend consider that if we were to consider a Swiss-style relationship with Europe and negotiate a proportionate drop in our net contributions, we could reduce the amount we pay to no more than £1.3 billion, saving nearly £7 billion? Does he find that an attractive idea?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Anything that saves UK taxpayers significant sums of money I deem worthy of further investigation.
	There are lots of areas in which the Government, working with others on the Council and Members of the European Parliament, who have an opportunity to amend the budget, can do a lot more, but only if there is a tiny threat that we might not want to increase our contribution at all. We have the reason to do it—the accounts not being signed off—but a urge the Minister to consider the opportunities that present themselves in the coming years. I support the Government in trying to reduce our budgetary contribution. I know that it is unbelievably hard work—I have sat in on these trilogue meetings in Brussels—but it is worth the effort, because we could save the UK taxpayer billions of pounds.

Keith Vaz: I want to start with a small Euro whinge about the time available to discuss these important matters. When we discuss European affairs, it is important that we have more than one and a half hours. I have great respect for the Front-Bench spokesmen, but they took more than 45 minutes to put their cases, leaving very little time for those knowledgeable Back Benchers—I do not include myself; I would never want to praise myself—who want to make a contribution on these important matters.
	It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who is obviously extremely knowledgeable about these issues, having sat on the budget committee of the European Parliament for many years before claiming asylum here in Westminster. I am sure that we should listen carefully to what he says about how the process operates. I would also be keen to see a copy of the DVD showing what goes on inside the EU that my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall
	(Kate Hoey) offered to Members. I have not received a copy—perhaps the UK Independence party MEP decided to send it only to some Members.
	I want to say three quick things, because I know that other Members want to contribute. The first, concerning migration issues, is directly relevant to the EU home affairs agenda. I would like to know from the Minister, if not today then certainly in writing, what part of the budget will be ring-fenced to help countries such as Greece to deal with the serious migration problems at their borders. I see that the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is here. The Home Affairs Committee visited Fylakio, on the border of Greece and Turkey, where we saw the detention centres in which many of these refugees and asylum seekers live. The conditions were appalling, and we were told that more than 100,000 people crossed the border between Greece and Turkey every year.
	Obviously we would like an improvement in the living conditions of those who arrive in Greece, but more than that we would like to prevent these illegal migrants from coming into Greece in the first place. As Members will know, the destination of choice for those 100,000 people who cross the border into the EU is not Greece. They are only kept in detention for six months, and they then travel to Athens and end up in northern and western Europe, particularly the United Kingdom and Scandinavian countries.
	We know that Greece is having huge problems, but I would like an assurance that some of the money in the budget will be ring-fenced for issues of concern to this country. If we are to deal with illegal migration, it is much better to do so at the far borders of the EU, rather than allowing it to be a problem for us here, with all the issues and political controversies that it raises when we debate it. Is any of that budget to be ring-fenced?

Mark Reckless: I wonder whether the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs recalls that when we went to Greece we came across a young lady from Latin America who had almost accidentally got caught up in the Greek illegal immigration system. She was desperate to go back, but the EU funds could not be used for that purpose, however much we made the case to the European Commission representative there. In the end, we had to get assistance from the Norwegian Government, whose funds did not require domestic Greek matching funds. Should we therefore not also deal with that issue?

Keith Vaz: That is absolutely right. I do remember that young lady. She made a beeline for the hon. Gentleman—he was single at the time, I think, and—

Mark Reckless: I must clarify the position: I believe it was my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) for whom she made a beeline.

Keith Vaz: We did not give notice of that allegation, so we had better not pursue it. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: the issue he raises is another area that can be looked at as a possible means of dealing with this important subject.
	The second issue—[ Interruption. ] My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) keeps reminding me that I said I would speak for three
	minutes, and my time is now almost up. Let me therefore ask the Minister to look at the cost of enlargement. I am a great supporter of enlargement. When I was Minister for Europe, my job was to go to the European Union, as Tony Blair told me to, and ensure that we became best friends with all the countries in eastern Europe that sought to come into the European Union, and that is what I sought to do. I am therefore very much in favour of enlargement, but I am a bit worried by some of the figures for the cost of it. Croatia has been promised €150 million, while Turkey, which is not even a member, has been given €3 billion. We all support Turkish membership, but I am worried about all the money that is going on candidate countries and the possibility that we do not know precisely what is happening to it.

Mark Hoban: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Last week the Commission proposed a €10 billion increase in the financial framework to cover the cost of Croatia’s admission. However, it should find that money from the existing budget, rather than loading additional costs on to taxpayers across all 28 member states, as they will become.

Keith Vaz: I am pleased to hear that the Minister is seized of the issue, and presumably he resisted that attempt to increase the budget. However, we seem to be giving a lot of money to some of the other potential candidate countries—Iceland, Serbia and Montenegro, as well as Turkey, of course—without knowing precisely what the benchmarks are. We should therefore look at that issue in the budget.
	My final point relates to the Europe 2020 strategy and the benchmarks set when it was created, starting with the Lisbon agenda, which was agreed in 2000. Are we sure that enough of that money is going on growth and jobs in the European Union? There are other issues that need to be dealt with, but ensuring more jobs and growth is the key to getting Europe out of its current mess.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), although I note that we are all glad that he is Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee rather than the Select Committee on the Treasury, because 13 minus six is certainly not three. None the less, it was a great pleasure to listen to what he had to say.
	I want first to deal with the hypocrisy of the European Union. It seems to me outrageous that the European Union is saying to the peripheral nations—the nations in trouble—that they must cut, be austere and have reduced budgets forced on them while it builds up its own empire and takes more money for itself, so that it can enjoy the fleshpots of Brussels while the people in Greece can hardly afford to eat. This is deeply shameful and another reason for being suspicious of the European Union and the way it operates.
	On the other hand, I support the Government because they have been valiant, in extremely difficult circumstances, in trying to keep the budget under control. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) pointed out, it is almost impossible to get a qualified majority to keep the budget down when so many people
	benefit from an increased budget. However, the Government have done incredibly well in getting allies and in working with other member states whose interests are aligned to ours to keep the increase down to just a little above inflation. Of course I would like to see more; I would like a cash decrease in the budget and a remarkably small EU budget in general, but, given the difficult circumstances that the Government face, they have done extraordinarily well.
	The Government have a bigger challenge ahead of them, however, because this arrangement is just for 2013 and they will have to negotiate the multi-annual financial framework. They hold one crucial card in that respect, which is unanimity—the veto. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether the starting point for the multi-annual financial framework will be the budget for 2013 as agreed or the limit for the 2013 budget as agreed under the last multi-annual financial framework, because I believe that there is a difference of €11 billion between the two. If we are starting from the much higher level, we might find ourselves being told that the reduction has been a great success when in fact there has been an overall increase. That technical point is important.
	I also want to issue a warning to the Government, and here I am going to sound like a Treasury stooge—a position that I hope to achieve at some point—who supports the Treasury line on everything. I support it in this regard, however, because I believe in austerity, and in cutting public spending and getting it under control. I am very worried about the partial general approach that is being taken to the multi-annual financial framework. I am worried that other Ministries are agreeing to programmes that will require funding, and that they will subsequently present the Treasury with a fait accompli.

Mark Hoban: I can assure my hon. Friend that that is certainly not going to be the case.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am reassured by that, but I note that some of the documents that we have seen in the European Scrutiny Committee make it seem as though it would be difficult to un-agree some of the things that have been agreed. I am reassured, however, that the Minister is going to watch the situation carefully.
	I should like to finish by thanking the Opposition for their marvellous amendment. It has without doubt achieved one thing, which is to unify the Conservative party in ridiculing an amendment that could hardly be sillier, more foolish, more erroneous, more wrong-headed or more potty—I hope that that word counts as parliamentary. Let us look at it. It states that
	“the UK’s ability to negotiate a satisfactory European Union budget deal has been weakened by the Prime Minister’s failure to secure allies”,
	yet the Prime Minister has secured allies right, left and centre. He did it for this year’s budget, and he has done it again for next year’s. It was one of his great European negotiating triumphs over the mendicant nations that get more money out of the European Union than they pay into it.
	The Opposition also have the brass neck to state in their amendment that they want a real-terms reduction in the multi-annual financial framework, and that the Government will not answer their questions. I asked the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) a
	simple question about the £10 billion that we lost, whether he regretted it in any way. I phrased my question as gently as I could, acknowledging that he had not been in Parliament at the time—a sad loss to the nation—but did he answer me? Did he say that it had been a great humiliation and a great shame that the last socialist Government had lost £10 billion of hard-earned British taxpayers’ money? Not a bit of it. He wandered on, and he meandered around, but he said nothing helpful of that kind. He therefore unites the Tory party in chortling at the effrontery of the socialists in coming here, when they spent money as if it was going out of fashion, and expecting us to do a job that even Hercules would probably have found beyond him.
	I urge the Government—I beseech them—to cut the spending of the European Union. I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry in saying that we should say to the EU: “For those 17 years of not having your accounts written off, we are deducting £1.7 billion from our contribution.” That has a nice symmetry. Let the EU take us to the Court—the Court that, as we discovered earlier, is gummed up with cases—and let it see whether it could bring a case against us to show that the law was on its side. I doubt that it would be.

Ian Davidson: It is noticeable that, so far as I am aware, not a single Member has risen to defend the European Commission’s case for an expansion of its budget. Not even my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—representing Leicester and Brussels East—who is just departing, dared to suggest that the budget should be increased. I note that not a single Liberal Democrat has bothered to turn up to defend the EU’s budget proposals either. When I indicated my intention to speak in this debate, the Whips Office very generously offered me the chance to have the day off, on three occasions, despite the three-line Whip. Nevertheless, I felt it appropriate to share my views with the House.
	This is the one area where, in respect of the UK Budget, virtually everybody is agreed that substantial cuts can be made. At a time of austerity, it is clearly indefensible to spend copious amounts of money on the European budget in the way we do. If I remember correctly, the Minister mentioned European schools, so will he tell us how much money is spent per teacher and per pupil in European schools in comparison with schools in the UK, either for the individual nations or across the UK as a whole? That would enable people to see the disparity. Will the Minister provide for the information of Members an account of the salaries and other rewards, and the tax and other deductions, of the top 100 most highly paid people in the European Commission and of those of the top people employed by the British Government? I believe such a comparison would reveal the level of extravagance of the European Commission in supporting itself in the style to which it has become accustomed to be outrageous and indefensible.
	The Minister did not mention to any great extent the case for making cuts in the common agricultural policy, which is the wildest example of a benefits system for the least deserving that I have ever come across in my life. We have attacked the poor by changing their benefits
	system, yet we are not prepared to take any steps to try to amend the benefits system that works for this country’s wealthiest landowners. The waste and extravagance of the EU fails to be audited successfully year after year—to the great complaint of the Public Accounts Committee on which I served for many years.
	It seems obvious that the Minister and Conservative Members must have something in their notes, saying: “weak case; kick Opposition”. I accept that the Opposition’s case is weak. I did not support the budget changes when we gave away the rebate: we got virtually nothing for it; we got no change to the common agricultural policy, and those responsible for it did not even get the presidency of the European Union. In those circumstances, it was a patently disastrous deal, but simply reflecting on that is not sufficient. The Minister needs to be more explicit about how exactly he proposes to deal with the situation in which we are perpetually outvoted in qualified majority voting by those who receive money from those who pay. There is an in-built majority of recipients, so it is inevitable in those circumstances that we will always lose.
	The question arises of what we do about the next overall budget for the longer period. I am not clear whether the Government are saying unequivocally that they intend to veto that budget if it is unsatisfactory. I am not clear how they will judge whether or not the proposed budget will count as unsatisfactory. An hon. Member asked earlier whether the Government would view a cash increase as acceptable in any terms. I would have thought that a cash freeze should be the very least that the Government would expect from the budget going forward. I would have hoped that we wanted to see, at the minimum, substantial cuts in a whole host of areas of the EU budget—and that otherwise we would reject it. If that brings about a confrontation with our European allies—those with whom we wish to work on many fronts—it might bring about the sort of issue on which we want a referendum.
	I have not previously favoured an in/out referendum because I regard neither of those options as particularly attractive: a yes to stay in would be seen as a green light to ever-closer union, while a no to get out would be seen by isolationists as a green light to their position. I believe in co-operation with our European allies, but on different terms from those that we have at present. The Government have a responsibility to be fair to our European allies so that they do not feel that they have been ambushed by our producing—like a rabbit out of a hat—a whole set of red lines at the last minute. We should be spelling out now what it is that we are not prepared to accept in any drastic redrawing of the budget.
	I hope, of course, that the budget cuts will be so drastic that my hon. Friends support them as well. It is noticeable that Opposition Members have been unanimous in criticising the European budget, and I think that if a vote were taken now among the Opposition Back Benchers who are currently present, the budget would be subjected to stringent cuts.
	The Government must recognise that the country is far more Eurosceptic and suspicious of EU budget spending than the élites of Europe who are disproportionately spoken for in the House. It is true that the Liberal Democrats are not here, but they are not the only guilty parties. There are those who have become hypnotised
	by the lure of Brussels and the concept of flying back and forth throughout Europe. They have been sucked in by a very seductive embrace: the idea of becoming a European statesmen, and world statesmen, and so on and so forth. That leads people to forget what life is like at home, and the feelings and ambitions of ordinary people, let alone the price of milk.
	I hope that the Financial Secretary will not only agree to provide the information for which I asked about schools and the salaries and taxation of the top 100, but spell out more clearly the rules that the Government intend to apply for the forthcoming budget period.

William Cash: The debate is extremely important, particularly in the light of what we heard from the Foreign Secretary this morning, because it is about our relationship with the European Union. As I said in my response to the Foreign Secretary’s statement, it is fundamental that we concentrate not merely on powers, but on democratic power. The debate is about sovereignty and tax and spend, it is about how much we should contribute, and—as I said to the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie)—it is about the increase in functions that has led to the increase in the budget. The hon. Gentleman knows that, and we know it. The fact is that the Lisbon treaty should never have been allowed to go through. The budget question is at the heart of this, and I say no, no, no.

Neil Parish: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we want to curb the powers of the European Union we should pay it far less money, which it should spend more efficiently, and, given that Europe is facing austerity, it is entirely wrong to ask for a 6% increase.

William Cash: It is indeed. In fact, the Commission is asking for 6.8%.
	I agree with the Minister that the Government have fought hard, but they have not fought well enough. Although an amendment that I tabled last year proposing no increase was accepted by Members on both sides of the House, we ended up with a 2.5% increase. I think I am right about that, although the Minister appears to disagree. As for the year that we are discussing now, we need to ensure that, if necessary, we take firmer steps in the light of the changed relationship that has resulted from these times of austerity.
	I think that we should say no and ensure that the amount in question is at worst a flat increase. Furthermore, I think that we should say no to the final results. QMV does not impress me: other member states have been breaking the law all over the place, particularly Germany and France over the stability and growth pact. The whole of the fiscal compact was unlawful. It is time that we took a firmer line. We are a major net contributor to the EU budget, of which, last year, 45% was spent on policies for sustainable growth, 41% on the preservation and management of natural resources, and the rest on, for instance, “the EU as a global player” and administration. We are the second largest net contributor after Germany. The current annual budgets under the multi-annual financial framework are going in the wrong direction. We should restrain all further expenditure to the EU. We must take action on the gross payments. The gross
	payments, less abatement, were £12.915 billion in 2010, up from £8 billion in 2005. There is an ever-growing increase in real terms. That is unacceptable in a time of austerity.
	I shall conclude by referring to a point I have already made. We must change our relationship with the EU in the way anticipated by those of us who would make the most of what the Foreign Secretary said earlier today, and we must do so sooner rather than later, and certainly before 2014. If we were to adopt a Swiss-style relationship and negotiate a proportionate drop in our net contributions, we would be able to save at least £7 billion for the British taxpayer. That is the direction we should go in. It is time that we said no, not maybe.

David Nuttall: As ever, it is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash).
	The facts are simple. The net out-turn figures are £9.2 billion for 2010-11, £8.7 billion for 2011-12, £6.9 billion for 2012-13 and £8.3 billion for 2013-14. At a time when we are cutting our budgets here in the UK, the fact is that, whatever happens in the negotiations, those in Europe and Brussels want the European budgets to be increased. Meanwhile, my constituents are seeing their budgets being cut. This serves to highlight the fact that we would be better off out of the EU.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 141, Noes 234.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 5 June 2012 from HM Treasury on the Statement of Estimates of the Commission for 2013 (Preparation of the 2013 Draft Budget); recalls the agreement at the October 2010 European Council and the Prime Minister’s letter of 18 December 2010 to European Commission President Manuel Barroso, which both note that it is essential that the European Union budget and the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework reflect the consolidation efforts of Member States to bring deficit and debt onto a more sustainable path; notes that this is a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe, with countries across Europe taking difficult decisions to reduce public spending; agrees that the Commission’s proposed 6.8 per cent increase in European Union spending in 2013 is unacceptable; agrees that the Commission’s proposal for a larger European Union budget is not the way to fix Europe’s problems, and that large savings are feasible without compromising economic growth; notes that the proposed increase would impose unaffordable costs on taxpayers in the UK and other Member States; notes that UK contributions to the European Union budget have also risen in recent years due to the 2005 decision to give away parts of the UK rebate; and so supports the Government in seeking significant savings to the Commission’s proposals across all budget headings and in its strenuous efforts to limit the size of the 2013 European Union budget.

EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights

David Lidington: I beg to move,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 18635/11, relating to the Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on Human rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action-towards a more effective approach, together with an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 7 June 2012, submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, relating to a draft Council Decision appointing the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights, and the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, and No. 8905/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; notes the Commission document on the Progress on Equality Between Women and Men in 2011; endorses the Government’s intention to support the draft Decision on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights; and welcomes the Government’s work to provide for enhanced Member State oversight of the Special Representative’s activities in Articles 10 and 11 of the draft mandate.
	The motion deals with a number of European Union documents. As the House will appreciate, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is responsible for those documents dealing with the EU’s human rights strategy and the proposed appointment of a human rights special representative. The Ministry of Justice is responsible for other documents included in the bundle, and I acknowledge the presence of the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), in that connection.
	Two years ago, almost to the day, the House debated the creation of the European External Action Service, an institution set up by the Lisbon treaty. The Government took the view that, whatever opinions the two parties in the coalition had about the creation of the EAS, now that it existed as the creation of the Lisbon treaty, we wanted the new institutional arrangement to complement our own strong commitment to an active British foreign policy and to use the EAS to help to deliver the diplomatic objectives of the United Kingdom. Our judgment is that the EU’s new human rights strategy is an example of how the EAS can be used to complement and amplify the UK’s own human rights policy.
	This afternoon, I want to address some of the concerns expressed by the European Scrutiny Committee and others about the implications of the measures before us. I have singled out three matters in particular.

Oliver Heald: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to address the concerns of the Scrutiny Committee, but does he accept that there is some concern in the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, particularly about how the two jurisdictions of the special representative and the human rights commissioner of the Council of Europe will overlap and interweave, whether this will be duplication or a takeover, and whether it all makes sense?

David Lidington: I completely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I said that I wanted to address the concerns expressed by the European Scrutiny Committee and others.
	The three issues I have in mind are: first, the need to maintain the rights of member states to determine their foreign policies and to avoid any scope for competence creep towards the EU institutions; secondly, concerns about the balance of responsibilities between the EU institutions themselves and, in particular, the role of the European Parliament; and thirdly—this goes straight to my hon. Friend’s point—the relationship between the EU special representative on human rights and the work of the Council of Europe, particularly its human rights commissioner.
	Let me deal first with the question of competence and the rights of member states to determine their foreign policy. Democratic freedoms, universal human rights and respect for the rule of law are at the heart of British diplomacy and policy. I believe that the new EU human rights strategy and in particular the EU special representative on human rights will help us to deliver our national foreign policy objectives better through the EU, by providing a strong and visible face for its external action on human rights.
	The EU’s external human rights policy flows from the common defence and security policy, which will provide the operating framework for the special representative. Declaration 13, annexed to the treaties, provides confirmation that the CFSP does
	“not affect the responsibilities of the Member States… for the formulation and conduct of their foreign policy”.
	Therefore, the new human rights package will not affect our ability to formulate and conduct our own national foreign policy. Furthermore, decisions at European level on CFSP require unanimous approval by the Council, with agreement by every member state. No EU position on external human rights policy or any other aspect of common foreign and security policy can be agreed without the approval of the British Minister or other representative in the room, and of course the same right of veto applies to every other member state. There is no suggestion in these documents or elsewhere that there should be any change to those arrangements.
	The Government’s view remains firmly that the EU must act only where it has the competence to do so under the European Union treaties. We will remain vigilant against any threat of competence creep through the actions of the External Action Service. It is essential that the EAS continues to complement and support, not replace, national diplomatic services. That is why, for example, we have been so resolute on the principle that the EAS should have no front-line role in consular services, which would go beyond the supporting role for member states provided for in the treaties.
	So far the EAS has delivered best when it has worked closely with member states and capitalised on the resources of member states and EU institutions. I will quickly highlight what I think are a number of genuine achievements from the past year where the EAS has worked well and, in doing so, has helped to deliver important British foreign policy objectives. First, there was the review of the European neighbourhood policy, which has produced an ambitious framework for the EU’s approach to the emerging democracies of north Africa and the middle east. That is now starting to have a practical impact through structures such as the EU-Tunisia taskforce.
	Secondly, the EAS and Baroness Ashton personally have worked closely with the E3 plus 3 to engage Iran over its nuclear programme, and the EU recently agreed to the most far-reaching sanctions ever imposed on any other country, working in that case closely and efficiently with the Governments of the individual member states. Thirdly, the sanctions already in place against the Syrian regime—16 rounds already agreed—are still under consideration and may be strengthened further.
	The proposed EU special representative will allow us to deliver more such examples of successful EU external action. The role is granted in article 33 of the treaty on European Union, which provides:
	“The Council may, on a proposal from the High Representative …appoint a special representative with a mandate in relation to particular policy issues.”
	The way in which the mandate is implemented will be critical, and I am glad that the European Scrutiny Committee noted the United Kingdom’s successful efforts to secure an additional layer of member state oversight of the special representative’s activities, in order to guard against any unwelcome or unwarranted expansion of their responsibilities. Article 11 of the mandate provides that
	“the EUSR shall work in coordination with the Member states.”
	Article 10 requires that he or she
	“shall also report to the competent Council working parties”,
	and article 4 states that the Council’s
	“Political and Security Committee shall maintain a privileged link with the EUSR”.
	The last provision is common to all EUSR mandates. In practice, that “privileged link” means that the special representative will be able to communicate directly with the Council, bringing together the representatives of the 27 member states, rather than having to go through the High Representative or through other structures. The mandate also ensures that the Political and Security Committee will
	“provide the EU special representative with strategic guidance and political direction.”
	Given those safeguards, I am confident that the United Kingdom is well placed to play a leading part in giving that direction and guidance to the EUSR and in holding the special representative to account for his or her actions.
	The appointment of a special representative will in no way affect the United Kingdom’s ability to speak, as now, on its own behalf in international organisations, including the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. As is the case now, the European Union may speak on our behalf only if there is a shared position to which the United Kingdom has signed up, and which requires unanimity. On the basis of those safeguards, I seek the House’s approval for the establishment of the role.

Jeremy Corbyn: Having attended many meetings of the UN Human Rights Council, I was consistently disappointed when the member state representative said nothing and left it all to the EU representative. I am pleased that increasingly the UK representative speaks independently, particularly about the death penalty, but can the Minister assure the House that we will continue to have an independent voice at the UN Human Rights Council and will resort to the EU representative to speak on our behalf only in a case of absolute unanimity?

David Lidington: I can give the hon. Gentleman two assurances. We are members of the UN Human Rights Council in our own right. When there is no unanimously agreed common foreign and security policy position, the United Kingdom’s representative will speak on behalf of the United Kingdom Government’s position. When there is a unanimously agreed CFSP position, normally that will be represented by the European Union’s representative, but member states do speak—particularly if the occasion is sufficiently important—in support of the EU representative’s view, giving extra weight to the views expressed on behalf of all 27 members. It is best left to judge on a case-by-case basis exactly what tactic will be the most effective in delivering the outcome we want, but I take to heart the hon. Gentleman’s point about wanting to hear the vigorous expression of British policy objectives, whether on our own or in support of a unanimously agreed EU position.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way in a second debate this afternoon.
	If there is not a unanimously agreed position, can the EU representative speak at all, or do they have to remain silent?

David Lidington: If there is no unanimously agreed position, there is no locus for the EU representative to speak at all; they have a right to express a view only when there is an agreed European Union position. As hon. Members on both sides will probably recall, there have been occasions when, regrettably, European Union member states have split two or three different ways on a particular issue before the Human Rights Council.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does that apply to the noble Baroness Ashton as well? Can she speak on foreign policy matters only with the consent of the British Government?

David Lidington: Baroness Ashton is an office holder, in accordance with the treaties, as both vice-president of the Commission and High Representative of the European Union. She can speak out on foreign policy issues in that capacity; what she cannot legitimately do is express a view purporting to be the commonly agreed policy of the European Union, and therefore on behalf of all 27 member states, unless the decision to adopt a common position has been taken by those member states.
	In practice, what happens is that a common foreign and security policy position is adopted. An incident may then occur—another outrage in Syria, for example. Nobody quarrels with the idea that Baroness Ashton would comment on that, just as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would; the test is whether the statements are in line with the foreign policy position that has been unanimously agreed. In my experience, Baroness Ashton has observed very well the requirements of the treaty and the importance of unanimity for a commonly agreed position.

Edward Leigh: Is the Minister aware of the widespread concern among Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe? We already have a perfectly good commissioner for human rights. Given that the Government’s rhetoric is all about avoiding competence creep by the EU and that
	we already have a perfectly good person doing a perfectly good job on behalf of nation states throughout Europe, we cannot understand why we are going along with the measure. The Minister has to reassure us further that in no way will it go against British national policy.

David Lidington: I have explained why the measure does not cut across British national policy, but I will come in greater detail to the relationship between the EU special representative and the Council of Europe.
	I turn to the action plan. The European Scrutiny Committee noted that it is a comprehensive text and suggested that it constitutes a departure from the approach outlined in the previous joint communication. The High Representative has described human rights as
	“a silver thread that runs through everything that we do in external relations.”
	That is very much how the Government see human rights, too. In 2010, early in the Government’s life, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that
	“values are part of our national DNA and will be woven deeply into the decision-making processes of our foreign policy at every stage.”
	The action plan is comprehensive, because integrating a human rights perspective across all areas of the EU’s external action is the best way to ensure that the European Union maximises its influence on these issues.
	We did not just agree to the action plan on the nod. We conducted a line-by-line assessment of the items, and we are content that what is proposed is in line with our policy objectives and does not pose a risk of competence creep. In addition, the Council has formally agreed that the action plan will fully respect the existing division of competencies. Although it is a comprehensive document, it both builds on the original joint communication and has been examined closely by the Government on precisely the question of competence that concerns my hon. Friend.

William Cash: rose—

David Lidington: I will give way, but I am very conscious that a lot of hon. Members wish to speak.

William Cash: It is also true that the Minister is at the Dispatch Box and has a responsibility to answer these questions. There are four pages under the headings of outcome, action, timing and responsibility. Is he seriously suggesting that in every single respect, given the general nature of all these things and the fact that the legal consequences will ultimately end up in some court or other, he is right in making such a general assertion?

David Lidington: Yes, of course the action plan is expressed in general terms, because the intention is that those general principles should be applied to the European Union’s human rights activity across the range of EU dossiers and areas of external policy action.
	On the common foreign and security policy—CFSP—the freedom of the EU special representative or the High Representative to express a view and develop a policy on behalf of the EU collectively will depend on whether a CFSP position has been unanimously agreed for a particular country, region or crisis. The action plan describes in general terms how the EU and its High Representative and special representative should determine their priorities for action, but we cannot sit down in
	July 2012 and write down in detail which countries and crises will be involved and in what manner such work should be undertaken. Foreign Ministers in the Foreign Affairs Council and national representatives in the Political and Security Committee will consider these matters case by case.
	The European Parliament saw a role for itself on the CFSP following the Lisbon treaty, and we were equally clear that the CFSP would remain intergovernmental. The High Representative has made a gesture to the Parliament in a non-binding declaration on political accountability, which says that she will seek the views—nothing more than that—of the European Parliament on CFSP matters. As one would expect, the European Parliament has taken a keen interest in the new human rights package. In accordance with article 36 of the treaty on the European Union, the mandate for the special representative provides that he or she
	“may be involved in briefing the European Parliament.”
	However, such briefings may take place only in a committee or sub-committee configuration and never in plenary debates, in which only the High Representative may participate. This reflects the arrangement, which we firmly support and uphold, that on issues pertaining to the CFSP the High Representative may be replaced in plenary only by a Minister of a member state.
	I want to move on to the possible overlap with the Council of Europe, which concerns several Members. I start by acknowledging the important work that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House play as Members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. I recall the very pleasurable visits that I made to the Parliamentary Assembly during the United Kingdom’s six-month presidency of the Council of Europe. It is clearly important that there be effective, mutually trusting co-ordination between the Council of Europe, particularly its human rights commissioner, and the EU’s new special representative on human rights. That is reflected in the wording of the mandate, which I will describe shortly.
	I note that the two roles have distinct responsibilities. The Council of Europe’s human rights commissioner is mandated to promote awareness of and respect for human rights within the member states of the Council of Europe. The EU special representative’s role is different; it is to promote human rights globally as part of the EU’s unanimously agreed CFSP. Both office holders will be involved in work on promoting respect for human rights in states of the Council of Europe that are not EU member states. To avoid any risk of unhelpful overlap and duplication, article 11(3) of the EUSR’s mandate expressly requires him or her to
	“liaise and seek complementarity and synergies with other international and regional actors”.
	To turn that jargon into English, it means that the special representative should maintain a regular dialogue with the commissioner to avoid duplication. The secretariat of the Council of Europe has expressed no concern to us about the creation of this role. Indeed, subject to proper co-ordination, it welcomes an increased focus on human rights within the EU’s external action.
	During the UK’s presidency, I discussed with Secretary-General Jagland the relationship between the Council of Europe and the European Union. I was pleased to
	learn from him and other senior officials in the Council of Europe that, over the past year or so, there had been a distinct improvement in the quality of liaison and co-operation between the two organisations. There was a feeling, certainly among the secretariat, that there was no longer the pressure from the EU that there had been for its institutions to take over the work of the Council of Europe; rather, efforts were being made on both sides to agree the areas where each was likely to be the most effective actor.

Christopher Chope: That may be the view of officials at the Council of Europe, but it is certainly not the view of the members of the Parliamentary Assembly. In a debate at the last part-session, members from all political parties and from right across the 47 member states expressed grave concern about the duplication and the additional cost involved in this project. Why are we spending money on this project in an age of austerity?

David Lidington: The budget for the special representative and his or her office and team has to be found from within the existing budget of the External Action Service. It will therefore have to be found at the expense of other potential items of expenditure. I have no doubt that some people will argue that, given the creation of the role, a bigger budget is needed, as with any EU special representative role, but we do not accept that. We continually resist calls for increases in annual and multi-annual budgets and seek to bear down on the costs of, and to secure better value for money in, individual special representatives’ missions and common security and defence missions more generally. I do not want my hon. Friend to think that this will lead to a vast new bill.

Michael Connarty: Some members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe have a different view from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). Some of us hope that the fundamental focus of the Council of Europe on human rights might reinfect the body politic of the European Union and add human rights to some of the agreed trade policies that have ignored human rights.

David Lidington: The hon. Gentleman has made his point for the record.

Oliver Heald: My concern is that the Council of Europe includes large and important countries such as Russia and Turkey. At the moment, those countries seem to be taking a constructive approach to the implementation of court judgments, criticisms and so on. There seems to be an improving picture. The Russians recently gave evidence to the committee on legal affairs and human rights about what they are doing. There is a great difference between being criticised and having a constructive approach within an organisation that one is part of and having another organisation that one is not part of shouting from the sidelines. Does my right hon. Friend understand that the 27 lecturing the others is not going to work and that we must avoid it?

David Lidington: If this is going to work to the benefit of the EU and its member states, it is important that it does not turn into the EU lecturing other countries, as
	my hon. Friend describes it. However, let us consider the situation in countries that are in the Council of Europe and not the EU. I repeat that a great deal is going on in EU relations with countries beyond Europe that are important but do not touch on the Council of Europe’s responsibilities.
	For instance, let us take Ukraine. The problems of human rights there are quite properly being dealt with through Council of Europe mechanisms. In particular, individuals can take specific grievances about alleged abuses of human rights to the European Court of Human Rights and have them tested by judges. However, the European Union has important relationships with Ukraine in its own right. Ukraine is part of the EU’s eastern partnership and has been negotiating with the EU an association agreement and a deepened comprehensive free trade agreement, which include clauses on human rights and political reform.
	The special representative for human rights can add value by giving extra coherence and force to aspects of specifically EU external policy that touch upon human rights matters. It is important that the two organisations respect each other’s important and complementary roles. I would be concerned if I thought that the EU had an appetite to take over what the Council of Europe was properly doing, but all I can say is that that is not what I am hearing from senior officials at the Council of Europe or from the High Representative and her senior team.
	I turn briefly to the other documents in the bundle, although they are not the direct responsibility of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The first is the Commission’s 2011 report on the application of the European Union charter of fundamental rights. The European Scrutiny Committee questioned whether the annual report served as a tool to effectively and systematically monitor the implementation of the charter and how the effective implementation of the charter by member states would be measured in future.
	It is important to note that the report is not an enforcement tool. It sets out a number of mechanisms that the EU institutions are developing to review EU legislation as it is drafted, to ensure that the rights and principles listed in the charter are respected. Although the charter is primarily directed at EU institutions and at member states only when they are implementing European law, the Government will consider any Commission proposal on how the actions of member states in that area might also be assessed.
	The final text before us is the Commission’s report on progress on equality between women and men. This is the first time that the document has been included with the report on the application of the charter, and the Government consider that the two reports sit well together. The Government believe that the UK has a good story to tell on gender equality. Our priority is to support women in employment, whether through the provision of quality, affordable child care or by providing mentors for aspiring business women. The Commission’s report rightly reflects the fact that progress is being made but warns us against being at all complacent about gender equality.
	In working with our EU partners on human rights issues, our objective throughout is to ensure that the EU institutions act to advance the prosperity, security and values of the UK by complementing and supplementing,
	not replacing, the work of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other arms of the UK Government. We consider that a new EU special representative for human rights will help us deliver our national diplomatic objectives through the EU by providing a strong, visible face for European external action on human rights. I therefore seek the House’s approval for the establishment of that role and commend the motion to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I advise the House that I will interrupt the debate at 6 pm to put the Question on the deferred Divisions motion, and then the debate will continue. I do not want to surprise anybody.

Emma Reynolds: I welcome this second opportunity to discuss a European motion, this time on the EU’s role in promoting human rights and democracy and the EU’s external policy. In the context of the Arab spring and with the ongoing crisis in Syria, those issues are highly relevant and the EU’s role is more important than ever.
	Three subjects are central to the motion: the new EU human rights strategy; the corresponding action plan; and the appointment of an EU special representative on human rights. The Opposition agree with the Government that the EU should use its collective weight to maximise its influence in promoting human rights and democracy around the world, and that the EU’s new human rights strategy will serve as a multiplier of the UK’s voice. The size of the European economy and the fact that the EU is the world’s largest provider of development aid gives it significant influence and leverage in the promotion of human rights.
	We also agree with Baroness Ashton that human rights must be the silver thread running through the EU’s external strategy. For the first time, one document summarises all aspects of EU human rights work. The strategy emphasises the universality of human rights and the importance of making them central to the EU’s external policies. It is vital that promoting and protecting human rights is not considered an add-on to the EU’s external policies, so we welcome the fact that they will be mainstreamed into all EU external policies.
	We welcome the strategy’s commitment to include human rights considerations in trade, investment, technology, telecommunications, internet, energy, environment, corporate social responsibility and development policy. The mainstreaming of human rights is further strengthened by the commitment for the geographical working groups in the Council to have responsibility also to fulfil the action plan. The EU will increase its support for freedom of expression, association and assembly. That is important, because, as the strategy says,
	“democracy cannot exist without these rights”.
	We welcome the increased emphasis on supporting the fair and impartial administration of justice—another important way of promoting the independence of the judiciary. More generally, there is an encouraging emphasis in both the strategy and the action plan on the need for the EU to evaluate the impact of its human rights policies. The EU’s annual human rights report will now
	evaluate the EU’s progress in meeting its objective as well as the human rights record of third countries. That is welcome in terms of increasing both transparency and accountability. Another positive development is the commitment to develop indicators for human rights dialogues.
	The action plan further acknowledges the division of competence between the EU and member states on human rights and recognises that the role of the EU is to complement the work done by member states. Finally, both the strategy and the action plan underline the importance of the EU working even more closely with civil society in its human rights work.
	The role of the new EU special representative on human rights will enhance the EU’s effectiveness and visibility in protecting and promoting human rights—this special representative will be the first to have a thematic role. Whoever is appointed will have a broader remit and a more flexible mandate than the existing EU special representatives. We agree with the Government that the person chosen to be representative should have
	“an established track record and international experience in human rights”
	and that he or she
	“should have an excellent ability to maintain diplomatic relations at a senior level”.
	The motion refers to the charter of fundamental rights and the Commission’s 2011 report on the application of the charter. The report underlines that progress has been made in ensuring that all EU institutions, bodies and agencies comply with the charter. It also contains a number of observations and recommendations. It notes that positive steps have been taken on, for example, disability rights, child protection and preventing human trafficking.
	On disability rights, the EU has joined the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities, which is a welcome development. On child protection, the EU has adopted an agenda on the rights of the child, which is a prelude to developing new rules on combating the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.
	The report details the EU directive on the prevention and combating of trafficking human beings and protecting its victims, which came into force in 2011. As the report recounts, the directive took a human rights and gender-specific approach and sought to achieve more effective prosecution of human traffickers by national authorities across borders. The Commission also appointed an EU anti-trafficking co-ordinator.
	The report highlighted areas for improvement, namely on gender equality, and to this end the Council of Ministers adopted a European pact for gender equality calling for equal participation of women in decision making and repeating the importance of integrating a gender perspective into all policies, including in the external actions of the EU. Progress has certainly been made, but there remains much to do.
	It is important to consider the role of human rights not only in the EU’s external policies but inside EU member states. In that context, I would like to ask the Minister about the situation in Hungary. Last year, the Commission used its legal powers to raise concerns with the Hungarian Government about media law, because
	the Commission had serious concerns that the law would severely restrict freedom of expression. Fortunately, the Hungarian Government were persuaded to agree to a raft of changes to ensure that those concerns were addressed.
	Nevertheless, there remain ongoing concerns about the actions of the Hungarian Government, in particular over the introduction of the new fundamental law, which came into force at the start of the year and replaced the constitution that had transformed Hungary from communist dictatorship to liberal democracy.

Jeremy Corbyn: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about the media laws in Hungary, but does she also share my concern about the disgraceful systematic treatment of the Roma in Hungary and the many cases reported at a very high level to human rights organisations? There is a case for the strongest possible statements to be made by both the EU and the Council of Europe.

Emma Reynolds: I agree with my hon. Friend that the protection of the human rights of the Roma community is incredibly important and that those rights are at risk in Hungary. Their human rights have been threatened in other member states, too—I will not mention a former President of the French Republic and some of the things he said about that community.
	The fundamental law extends the Hungarian Government’s control over various bodies that should be independent, such as the central bank and the courts. In particular, there are concerns about the independence of the judiciary. We believe that an independent judiciary is a vital safeguard of human rights. The European Parliament and the Commission have raised concerns about democracy and the accountability of the Hungarian Government, and it is clear that human rights must be protected within the EU and its member states, if the EU is to have an authoritative voice on human rights in external countries. I would appreciate it, therefore, if the Minister could shed some light on these matters by answering the following questions: does he think that the situation in Hungary weakens the EU’s voice on democracy and human rights in third countries; and will he update the House on what discussions he and his colleagues, including the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, have had with the Hungarian and other EU Governments about the new Hungarian fundamental law and its the implications for the human rights of the Hungarian people?

William Cash: Is the hon. Lady aware of the enormous majority that the President, Prime Minister and Government of Hungary have as a result of free and proper elections? Does she think it the right and duty of the EU or the Venice Commission to tell a member state how it should behave, when it has such a massive democratic mandate? This is a very serious question.

Emma Reynolds: I agree only that it is a very serious question. The EU must promote and protect human rights within its member states, regardless of the majority that a President or Government have received from the electorate. We should not tolerate the judiciary, the media or other such institutions being under the control of whatever Government in whatever member state. Labour Members are proud of our record on human
	rights while in government. We passed the Human Rights Act and prioritised the promotion of human rights in our external policies, particularly our development policy. Further back in history, the UK was one of the leading architects of the European convention on human rights. We remain proud that the UK is a signatory to that convention, and we are a full and active member of the Council of Europe.
	Although we welcome the Government’s position on the documents before the House, it seems that the Government are not always entirely consistent in their commitment to human rights. The Minister has said positive things today, but his Conservative MEPs in Brussels say and vote entirely differently. Regrettably, they sit with a rag-bag of anti-Semites, holocaust deniers and homophobes.

Mark Reckless: Rubbish!

Emma Reynolds: I do not think it is rubbish at all.
	We need a Government who will consistently champion human rights in the UK, in Brussels and around the world. The new EU strategy, the action plan and the appointment of a special representative for human rights will hopefully make the EU’s promotion of human rights and democracy more effective. We therefore support the motion.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. A number of colleagues wish to participate, but I should remind the House that the debate is time limited, and we wish to leave some time for the Minister to respond.

William Cash: I have listened to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), and my concern about this whole debate is that it seems that, somehow or other, there is a universality about human rights, without reference to democracy in individual countries. The question I have to ask is: how do we define what a human right is?
	It is not so simple. I believe in human rights; I believe in the manner in which we legislate. However, we are already having a massive debate in the House of Commons about the Human Rights Act 1998, and also about the commission that has been set up as a result of the coalition agreement. There are also massive questions being raised about the manner in which our judiciary is interpreting human rights—in relation to extradition, deportation, Abu Qatada, and so on. I have even noticed some Opposition Members showing an increased interest in whether human rights can be regarded as entirely generic and universal, when it is actually up to individual member states and individual Parliaments, based on the votes cast in general elections, to decide whether a particular human right is or has been contravened.

Jo Swinson: rose —

William Cash: I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, because I am getting increasingly fed up with these people who continually assert, with their political correctness, that they know what a human right is. It is down to
	Parliament, based on what is decided by the voters in general elections, to determine those questions. It is a matter of law, not just some generic universality. I will be the first to fight for habeas corpus or trial by jury. What worries me is all these generic expressions—I will come to that in the middle of my speech—and this whole concept, which is promoting more and more generic human rights creep.

Jo Swinson: I sometimes wonder whether it is better not to encourage the hon. Gentleman, but I want to challenge him on universality, because I believe, as do many others, in the universality of human rights, as have been signed up to by our Government through the United Nations conventions. Does he really think that we in this country have no role in arguing and campaigning for changes abroad, and that if, for example, even a democratic country elsewhere in the world decided that it would persecute Christians—torturing them, and so on—just because of their beliefs, that should be of no concern to us whatever and that we should not try to change minds or persuade others to take action to change it?

William Cash: No, I do not. As a matter of fact, I have been very much personally involved in the Jubilee campaign, standing up for the rights of people in other countries who are being persecuted. Indeed, as the hon. Lady will know, I have also promoted the issue by forming the all-party group on water and sanitation in the third world. I stand absolutely 100% behind people’s rights in that regard. What worries me is when the whole thing is codified—as it is in the papers before us and the strategic plan—and interwoven with the universality matrix, and then buttressed by legal requirements. Therefore, when I hear the Minister saying, “Well, we will exercise the veto as and when it is appropriate”—if I can put it in generic terms—I simply do not believe that to be a realistic way of dealing with the issue.
	This is another example of the European Union engaging in European creep on a monumental scale. I am not against the individual defence of people in relation to human rights questions, and there are many things that crop up in the European strategic framework and action plan that I would strongly support in an individual context. What worries me is the universality, not only because of the panoramic view that is taken of all these matters, but because of the panoramic way in which it will be applied in practice, headed by the European representative. This is essentially a practical question.

Julian Lewis: Is it my hon. Friend’s assertion that, while he has no objection to a democratic country expressing strong views about abuses of human rights in other countries, democracies or otherwise, his real objection is that the European Union is seeking to take on this role without constituting a democracy in its own right?

William Cash: That is exactly the point. This is almost a jurisprudential question. It is not about fancy philosophy; it is about how we make decisions relating to individual, practical instances. My hon. Friend is entirely right to make that point. It is difficult to imagine that we will be able to make a choice, once the machinery is moving forwards. I shall give the House an instance from among
	the wide range of activities in the many pages of the strategic framework and action plan that has been adopted by the EU Council. By engaging in this proposal, we are effectively endorsing European creep. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister says that that will not happen, and that we will have the opportunity to exercise the veto, but I just do not see this as a practical way of working.
	The Council has adopted the measure, and we have demanded this debate on the matter for very good reasons. We want to examine exactly what the measure contains. There simply is not enough time, in the one and a half hours allotted to us, to go through the incredibly complex questions that arise from the matter or to deal with the interaction of the decisions and the impact that they will have on human rights law in this country or in others.
	I shall give the House a flavour of what I am talking about. Anyone listening to or reading the debate might like to look at the range of matters in the action plan. I mentioned that it is divided into outcomes, actions, timings and responsibilities. It is divided into seven chapters, and it sets out a variety of external policy activities. This has been agreed by all member states. Seven headings cover 36 policy areas and 97 potential actions, and that deals with the matter only in the generic sense. When we reduce this to individual cases, we are effectively saying that the EU will have a supervisory responsibility, subject only to the caveat that we will be able to exercise the veto, as my right hon. Friend the Minister said. I do not see that happening, however, once the machinery has been set up.
	This is very much like the External Action Service. Indeed, it is very much like the EU itself. I said in 1992, or whenever it was—it seems a very long time ago now—that once the Maastricht treaty had gone through, once the European governmental system had been created with all the qualified majority voting that went with it, once we had created the mechanism and endowed it with resources, and once we had increased and implemented its legislative capacities and functions, we would have constructed an enormous creature that was incapable of being restrained. That is exactly what has happened, with disastrous consequences.
	To come back to the main issue, let me provide a few examples. In the first place, the action plan refers to
	“Human rights and democracy throughout EU policy”.
	For those who are interested, this is taken from a Library note dated 9 July. It is also is referred to in the papers before us and it has been looked at by the European Scrutiny Committee. The plan refers to the need to
	“Incorporate human rights in all Impact Assessment”,
	and to
	“Insert human rights in Impact Assessment, as and when it is carried out for legislative and non-legislative proposals, implementing measures and trade agreements that have significant economic, social and environmental impacts, or define future policies.”
	I would like to know what is not included in that, and what the opportunity would be for any restraint on the use of such provisions in the strategic plan.
	The plan also refers to
	“Genuine partnership with civil society”,
	and that
	“Heads of EU Delegations, Heads of Mission of EU Member States, heads of civilian missions and operation commanders shall work closely with human rights NGOs active in the countries of their posting.”
	I would be the first to support NGOs in their individual activities, but this is a mandatory requirement, going beyond what I would describe as voluntary activity. Then there is the need to
	“Present EU performance in meeting the objectives of its human rights strategy in the annual report on human rights and democracy in the world.”
	I would be on the side of all those campaigners when it comes to individual human rights matters. I see in his place the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), who knows that I campaigned with him on issues relating to the Chagos islanders. Going further back, I was also involved with the issue of aboriginal rights in Canada. I could provide a whole list to show that I have been as much at the forefront as anyone else when it comes to campaigning against abuses of human rights. Where I differ, and why I object to these arrangements, is in respect of this overarching determination to get away from specific campaigns into this idea of universality, whereby I think we miss the wood for the trees.

Jeremy Corbyn: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s genuine support for human rights issues in many parts of the world and the fact that he campaigns on them. Does he agree with me, however, that the issue of the Chagos islanders is now before the European Court of Human Rights and that it will take a decision? Both the hon. Gentleman and I want it to go in the same direction. Is this not one possible way of bringing about justice for the people who were treated so abominably in 1982?

William Cash: I would rather have the hon. Gentleman leading the campaign for the Chagos islanders than the EU representative who is being appointed under these documents. It is the individual commitment that counts. If I may say so, it is rather like John Bright, who campaigned for people’s rights throughout the world—in our colonies and our empire—in the 19th century. It is the individual passion and determination to stand up for people that I look towards. That is what Wilberforce was all about. I doubt whether William Wilberforce would have been deeply impressed by the manner in which this is being done. I really have to ask that question, because in my judgment, it is not desirable to end up creating this universal approach.
	The second chapter is
	“Promoting the universality of human rights”.
	With the outcome of “universal adherence”, it specifies the action:
	“Intensify the promotion of ratification and effective implementation of key international human rights treaties, including regional human rights instruments”—
	and so it goes on and on, page after page, and I am reading from a tightly compressed printed version. In an intervention, I think I mentioned four pages, but there are seven pages of this. All I need to say is this: is this really the right way to go? Baroness Ashton and the entire External Action Service are, I believe, simply another manifestation of the problem. On the very day we have been told that we are to examine all the workings
	of the European Union in relation to the United Kingdom —all its competences—the central question is being lost, and a globalising, universal approach is being taken to something that will have to form part of the review announced by the Foreign Secretary.
	On the very day we have advocated an analysis of the manner in which the European Union functions, we seem to be effectively endorsing a strategy that goes in exactly the opposite direction to the views of all those Members who support not only the review, but the repatriation of powers and the resolution of the human rights questions that are so bedevilling the relationship between Parliament and the judiciary and the whole question of extradition, the whole question of immigration policy, and the whole question of the application of law in this country on matters pertaining to human rights.
	I view this development with grave concern. I do not refer to its individual application to individual cases; I refer to the attempt, through what I consider to be European federalisation or European creep, to convey the concept of a European Union that is acting on behalf of all of us. If a country such as Hungary has made a decision in its own Parliament, I think that that should be respected. Through their electors, through general elections and the democratic will of their own people, individual nation states, or member states, should be allowed to decide these matters, rather than having their decisions overridden by universality of the kind that these documents represent.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief, so that the remaining Members who wish to speak can do so before the debate has to end.
	I support the motion, but I acknowledge what has been said by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). Human rights changes are achieved because people are prepared, very bravely, to stand up for them. We should spare a thought for the role played by human rights defenders throughout the world who often put themselves at huge risk to speak up for other people. Many of them are assassinated or murdered as a result, and they are the ones whom we do not hear about.
	Anything we can do to improve the general atmosphere and narrative of human rights is very important. We should not be over-sensitive when we are criticised by people outside this country, for we are not perfect when it comes to human rights. We make many mistakes. For instance, we imprison far too many young people, and I think that our treatment of asylum seekers is highly questionable. We impoverish many people who are legitimately seeking the right of asylum here.
	I spent many years campaigning for the rights of the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four, who were wrongly accused of bombings and murder in this country and were eventually released. I was very pleased by the open declarations of support that were made by many people around the world, including people in Australia and the United States of America. I did not see that reaction as an interference in the political system or rights in this country; I saw it as a legitimate and helpful element of political debate.
	What I find slightly odd is that we should end up confusing support for human rights with treaty obligations. Every time any country signs a treaty and ratifies it through its own system, it gives up some of its sovereignty.
	That is what a treaty is about: it gives a country international obligations. When we sign a document such as the universal declaration of human rights, the European convention on human rights or any other convention and incorporate it into UK law, of course that changes things, and of course it limits what we can do in our national law. I think that is fair enough; we should enter into agreements with an open mind, and if we do not agree with certain aspects of them, we should try to change them later. Although I support the Government motion, only a week ago we were debating with great intensity in this House the alleged interference in British law of the operation of article 8 of the European convention on human rights, and the right to family life in the context of the new immigration rules introduced on Monday, which are limited and damaged in that respect. We must be more consistent in such matters, therefore.
	Earlier, I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) about the situation in Hungary. I hope that all the member states of both the Council of Europe and the EU will be prepared to stand up and say something about the loss of rights of free expression that is going on and the abominable treatment of the Roma people in Hungary—the systematic discrimination and the brutality against them. During a visit to Brussels, I met a MEP from Hungary who shared my views on that. The people in Hungary who are trying to stand up for the rights of minorities in that country need open declarations of support. They need to know that others are watching what is going on, and that we support them in their efforts.
	I would like the Minister to say whether the EU human rights strategy will include generic human rights that are not necessarily specific to any one country. I am thinking about migrant peoples, migrant workers and itinerant asylum seekers across Europe. We are facing a human rights crisis in many parts of the world. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people are dying trying to flee to a place of political, military or economic safety: those who die trying to cross from the west African coast to the Canary islands; those who try to cross the Mediterranean to Greece, Spain, Sicily or elsewhere; and those who die in transit. Many of these people will have paid a great deal of very hard-earned money in order to try to get to a place of economic security, yet they die in the process or are subsequently grossly exploited by industrialists, farmers and others all across Europe. Throughout Europe, there is an entire underclass of people who are leading a twilight existence. That is an abuse of their human rights.
	Sadly, there is a growing narrative of far-right racist parties across Europe that are prepared to attack these people at every turn, and we need to say that these people deserve, and should get, protection from national and international laws. Worldwide, there are even more such people, such as the poor people who recently died trying to get from Indonesia to Australia. They are the ones we have heard about; there are many others whom we do not hear about at all. I would like to know, therefore, whether there will be a systematic approach to such human rights issues.
	Turning to the abuse of human rights in Russia, the decisions on two cases that were before the European Court of Human Rights were announced yesterday. One was that there had been brutal treatment of an individual, which was a welcome decision. The other
	decision, however, was more than slightly surprising, as it found that it was within Russia’s national competence to suppress demonstrations in the run-up to the recent elections. Without having had the benefit of reading the entire judgment, I have to say I find that more than a little surprising. I would have thought that we, and the European Court of Human Rights, would respect the right to demonstrate peacefully in any circumstances, and that we would agree that to curtail that right is clearly an infringement.
	Turkey has had the presidency of the Council of Europe and is bound by the European convention on human rights and decisions of the European Court. There are still significant problems, however. Political parties have to achieve a threshold of 10% of the national vote to be represented in the Turkish Parliament, and there are serious concerns about the conduct of trials of Kurdish people in Diyarbakir and other places in the south-east of Turkey. Although I suppose pretty well everyone in this country supports the Turkish application to be a member of the EU, I hope that there will be some recognition of the fact that there are problems in the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey.
	The last point I wanted to make relates to the international operation, outside both European Union and Council of Europe states, of the proposed new system of an EU human rights representative. The EU has trade agreements with a large number of countries, all of which include a human rights clause. Many of us have raised many times the issue of the human rights clause in the EU trade agreement with Israel and the detention of Palestinian people, including Palestinian parliamentarians and Palestinian children, and a number of associated issues. Is raising such issues going to become the duty of the EU representative? Will the representative be prepared to do so, or will they be bound by a sense of unanimity—an issue raised by the hon. Member for Stone—in raising questions on the ground?
	The same things apply wit the EU trade arrangements with Morocco, which remains in occupation of the Western Sahara. The EU trade agreements with Morocco continue, but the fishery agreement has been suspended following an EU decision made, as I understand it, because the proceeds of fishing were not evenly spread, particularly among the people who ought to be able to live in the Western Sahara.
	If we are to be effective, as the EU representatives sometimes can be, we should say so. I have visited Mexico on a number of occasions and was very impressed with the EU ambassadors working together—all 27 of them—and being prepared to put joint pressure on the Mexican Government to support the decisions of the inter-American human rights court. Such an approach is effective. The hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and I were part of a delegation when those issues were raised, and we acknowledged that that was an effective representation that made a difference which encourages the Mexican political system to acknowledge that Mexico, too, has responsibilities to the inter-American human rights court.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the EU representative is prepared to be robust, particularly where EU trade interests are involved, given that it may sometimes be pointed out by the country concerned that trade relations with the EU are being damaged. We
	want to see people having the right to speak freely, to demonstrate freely, to organise themselves freely and to join trade unions freely. Just as much as we would want those things for ourselves, we would want them for other people around the world.
	Having said that, we have to acknowledge the huge work done by voluntary sector organisations in this country—by Amnesty International, the Bar Human Rights Committee and so many others—in improving human rights around the world. In reality, what we legislate for has often come from the activities of very brave individuals and brave groups all around the world. What we are doing is acknowledging that in legislation by what we are trying to do today.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Nigel Evans: Order. With the proviso that I am going to interrupt proceedings at 6 pm, may I advise hon. Members to be conscious that if they want to give the Minister any time to wind up, they must take into account the fact that the Question must be put at 6.16 pm?

Jo Swinson: I rise to support the motion and the documents before us. It is worth remembering the origins of the European Union and its predecessor organisations in the aftermath of world war two. The original body was set up not only to promote peace and security across western Europe, but as a result of the appalling human rights violations seen in that war, with the aim of ensuring that such things could never happen again. Obviously, it has not always been successful, but the over the decades it has been a strong guardian of human rights through its role in international negotiations and through the incentive—the carrot—offered of potential EU membership, which has encouraged many countries to make progress and take steps to improve their human rights records. Of course more can always be done, and it is right to recognise that there are problems within EU member states. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said, we in the UK should not be complacent but should maintain an ever-vigilant approach to improving human rights in this country, too.
	Member states do a lot individually, but we can do even more with the strength of 27 nations acting together. That is why I support the historic opportunity to further the aims of UK foreign policy. The action plan and the creation of the special representative have already been approved by 26 member states and I urge the House to support the motion today, so that we can also do that.
	The debate stood adjourned (Standing Order No. 9(3)).
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A( 3 )),
	That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motions in the names of Mr David Lidington and Mr Mark Hoban relating to European Documents.—(Michael Fabricant.)
	Question agreed  to .
	Debate resumed.
	Main Question again  proposed .

Jo Swinson: I very much welcome the strength of the language in the strategic framework, particularly the emphasis on the centrality and universality of human rights in EU foreign policy. Like the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds), I think that the mainstreaming of this question across different policy areas is important, as it means that human rights are not dealt with in some sort of isolated box. The ability of the EU to take an active position—the special representative will certainly help in that regard—is incredibly important, particularly in the context of recent events during the Arab spring and in many countries around the world that still have grave human rights problems. The action plan is comprehensive and I will touch on a few specific areas.
	Section 11, on trade, is helpful on the question of mainstreaming and includes in its list of actions one, (f), which states that we must:
	“Work towards ensuring that solid human rights criteria are included in an international arms trade treaty.”
	I know that the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) were at the negotiations that are ongoing in New York. Indeed, I think we are soon to have an Adjournment debate on the topic—unfortunately, I am unable to stay, as I need to catch a train to get back to Scotland this evening. It would be helpful for the House to hear how those negotiations are progressing in the context of the human rights criteria that we so much want to be a strength of that treaty.
	I also welcome sections 13 and 18 of the action plan on entrenching human rights in counter-terrorism activities and providing effective support to human rights defenders, which was an issue raised by the hon. Member for Islington North. In 2010, along with the noble Lord Judd, I visited Chechnya to see the human rights situation there. We were both struck, as the report we produced made very clear, by what we experienced and witnessed. We spoke to people who were victims of human rights abuses and heard about disappearances, assassinations, murders and violence where there was no proper judicial process—cases would be opened and not followed through, so people would not be brought to justice and the security forces would perpetrate the abuses. It was clear that that worsened the security situation and in some ways created a breeding ground for the terrorism that the security forces were trying to repress. Human rights defenders play an important role in bringing abuses to the attention of the wider community, and some of the points in the plan, particularly those on temporary havens for human rights defenders when they are under particular threat, are matters on which we could do more within the European Union.
	I also warmly welcome section 16, which is about the death penalty and what is being done to work for its abolition in other countries. I particularly welcome the suggestion of targeted campaigns to try to get the retentionist countries to change their minds. Next year, we will have the world congress against the death penalty; it would be wonderful if some countries agreed at that point to abolish it. Can the Minister update us on any recent discussions? The Government always say that they raise the issue in discussions with other countries, and I am certain that that is true, but we also want to see action and some indication of whether progress is likely with some of our counterparts around the world.
	On that point, I warmly welcome the recent decision that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has taken on export controls on the drug propofol, which can be used in executions in the United States. That comes on the back of a similar decision about sodium thiopental in 2010. If we are serious about opposing the death penalty, it is vital that we do not make it easy for other countries to implement it through our sales to them. Two years ago, the UK’s leadership ultimately led to a EU-wide ban, which shows how we are stronger working with all the states together.
	I mentioned earlier in my intervention on the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) the section on freedom of religious belief. We are lucky to enjoy a great degree of religious tolerance in our society. Given the tensions in South Sudan and Sudan, the persecution of Christians in Iraq, the Baha’i in Iran, the treatment of Sikhs in India, about which many of my constituents have expressed concern, and the host of other countries around the world where people do not have the freedom to hold the faith they choose and to worship in peace without fear of violence, that is a hugely important section in the plan.
	I do not endorse the concerns that were raised about competence creep. The Minister has reassured us absolutely on that point. This is about enhancing UK influence, not reducing or constraining it. It is about 27 states agreeing on something and it therefore having the agreement of our Government and this place. An additional voice can only be a good thing. I warmly welcome the motion and the documents and I hope that the House will support them today.

Michael Connarty: It is important to put on the record that I supported giving the Minister a waiver so that he could go to the Council and support this document, rather than having to break the scrutiny reserve if he had to do so. The reason was that we were going to have a debate anyway, and in the document there is much to support. I want people outside who listen to this debate and who do not spend all their time reading European documents to know exactly what we are supporting.
	On 25 June 2012, the EU Foreign Ministers adopted an ambitious EU strategic framework and action plan on human rights and democracy. It included an ambitious human rights package consisting of 36 policy areas, ranging from the fight against the death penalty, effective support for democracy, the eradication of torture and the promotion and protection of children’s rights. A division of that work into not less than 97 actions has been agreed, and I hope will come into effect, in full respect of national competences—a point made by the Minister. Indeed, only with a joint commitment between the EU and its member states can change be made on the ground.
	The action plan sets out a wide variety of external policy activity agreed by all member states. The 97 potential actions have seven headings: human rights and democracy throughout EU policy; promoting the universality of human rights; pursuing coherent policy objectives; human rights in all EU external policies; implementing EU priorities on human rights; working with bilateral partners; and working the multilateral institutions. The last one is
	very important because the non-governmental organisations now feel that they have been invited in to the discussions in a way that they have not felt the EU institutions have dealt with them in the past.
	The appointment of a human rights representative or envoy will be the first ever thematic envoy. There are many at the moment in parts of the world, but not on a theme such as human rights, and that will be fundamentally important.
	The document assigns responsibility for each proposed action to the European External Action Service, member states, the Commission or a combination of two or more of them. It is clear that there is a commitment to consolidate consultations with civil society, which is fundamental.
	I think that when these measures are combined with the decision of the EU to sign up to the convention on human rights, there has to be a fundamental rethink of how the EU carries out its policies. The director of Amnesty International’s European institutions office, Nicolas Beger, who was today debating with me in another place on this issue, said:
	“We never thought we would see such a positive move forward”.
	He commended Cathy Ashton, who has done so much in a way that people did not believe possible. As Hollande said to Sarkozy, “The reason you lost is you underestimated me.” We underestimated Cathy Ashton’s ability to deliver.
	We have to ask the EU to look again at its trade agreements. If they are in breach of human rights, which are fundamental to the Council of Europe, the EU has to consider why it did not take on human rights conditions in Colombia, Israel, Peru and Sri Lanka, and it must look again at conditions in Turkey. All of them contain breaches of human rights. If this is going to work, the action plan and the envoy must speak up for human rights defenders before they are thrown into jail or killed by repressive regimes, and we must make sure that we do not sign trade agreements that allow continued breaches of human rights. That is what I see in this policy, and I hope that, by supporting it, we will see forward movement that we have not seen from the EU for some time.

David Lidington: May I first thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate? I say to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) that the action plan clearly sets out the fact that part of the special representative’s role will be to act as an advocate for human rights concerns with both the Council, representing the member states, and the EU institutions because, as he will know, the Commission in particular will have a leading role in trade negotiations, for example. The purpose of the framework, with the strategy, the action plan and the special representative, is to ensure that human rights concerns cannot be overlooked or dismissed in any area of the EU’s external activity.
	The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) asked about Hungary. Our general approach to the Hungarian legal changes has been to support the European Commission in its approach to the Hungarian Government. As she acknowledged, the
	Hungarian Government altered their proposed media law after conversations with the Commission, and the same was true of their proposed changes to the governance of the Hungarian central bank, which were later amended. I have had a number of conversations about these issues with my Hungarian opposite number over the past 18 months. I will write to the hon. Lady with a little more detail on the matters she raised.
	The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) asked about the scope of the action plan and the special representative’s role. Article 20 of the action plan relates to gender-based violence, article 14 deals with action against human trafficking, and article 9 covers trade agreements, so these generic issues are within scope. The particular issue of migration that he talked about can be covered in the action plan’s reference to the EU’s development instruments. My one word of caution is that this particular set of documents comes within the framework of the common foreign and security policy, whereas some of the questions he asked are really about the treatment by EU member states of migrant and minority populations within their own borders, and that is outwith the scope of the special representative, whose responsibilities pertain to the EU’s external policy only. It is probably best if I do not talk about the Russian cases he mentioned, because I have not read the judgments or been able to take a considered view on them. His point about human rights defenders was well made. Again, standing up for human rights defenders is listed explicitly as one of the items in the action programme.
	I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) on some of the detailed points she made, particularly those about the death penalty. As she said, the two issues that concern her—women’s rights and freedom of religion—form an important part of the action plan and will be within the scope of the special representative’s work. With regard to the arms trade treaty, the United Kingdom remains firmly of the view that we want an ATT that contains strong human rights and international humanitarian law provisions, and that is what British Ministers and officials will be pressing for in the forthcoming round of negotiations.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) raised the serious question of how we get the balance right between an acceptance that people everywhere are entitled to respect, dignity and what we would term human rights and the right of electors in a democracy to express their will and have it carried into effect by those whom they choose to govern them. That takes us a long way beyond the scope of the motion before us, but they are very important and profound questions with which countries throughout the world are grappling, and we accept that in the national sphere there should be constraints, legislative or constitutional, on the untrammelled freedom of a majority to act, which may be temporary, when that action might unfairly or unreasonably damage the interests of minorities.
	The debate to which my hon. Friend was contributing was about the extent to which that principle should be adopted internationally, too, and I would just say this with regard to the EU. The EU is not just an economic club; it has always been a club for democracies. Spain could not get in until it established democracy, and the EU accession process is the most important driver of
	democratic, political and rule of law reform in eastern and central Europe today. I ask that the House support the motion before us.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 18635/11, relating to the Joint Communication to the European Parliament and the Council on Human rights and democracy at the heart of EU external action-towards a more effective approach, together with an unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 7 June 2012, submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, relating to a draft Council Decision appointing the European Union Special Representative for Human Rights, and the EU Action Plan on Human Rights and Democracy, and No. 8905/12 and Addenda 1 and 2, a Commission Report to the European Parliament and the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights; notes the Commission document on the Progress on Equality Between Women and Men in 2011; endorses the Government’s intention to support the draft Decision on the EU Special Representative for Human Rights; and welcomes the Government’s work to provide for enhanced Member State oversight of the Special Representative’s activities in Articles 10 and 11 of the draft mandate.

Business Without Debate
	 — 
	European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Global Satellite Navigation Systems

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 17844/11 and Addenda 1 and 2, relating to a draft Regulation on the implementation and exploitation of European satellite navigation systems; and supports the Government’s aim to avoid prejudging the negotiations on the Multi-Annual Financial Framework whilst establishing more effective governance arrangements to address previously identified deficiencies within the programme, principally by ensuring that the Regulation provides greater clarity of the roles and responsibilities of different organisations, and greater budgetary transparency for Member States in order for progress of the programme to be monitored.—(Angela Watkinson.)
	Question agreed to.

ARMS TRADE TREATY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Martin Caton: The final negotiations that can create a robust and effective conventional weapons arms trade treaty, built on humanitarian and human rights principles, are happening in New York most of this month, and they are potentially a major step forward in the protection of human life across our planet. The world must grasp this opportunity, because it is far from certain that another one will come along again in the foreseeable future.
	In one sense, it is astonishing that we have reached this year and not adopted a worldwide agreement to regulate the global arms trade before. We have treaties that control trade in a whole variety of goods, such as in endangered species, ivory and rhino horn, dinosaur bones and bananas, but not in the global arms trade, and the absence of such a treaty has undoubtedly meant death and injury, often to some of the most vulnerable people throughout the world, on a truly alarming scale.
	As the Control Arms Coalition points out in its briefing to parliamentarians on the treaty, every minute at least one person dies from armed violence; 85% of all killings documented by Amnesty involve guns; and two bullets are produced each year for every person on the planet.
	The arms trade is global, so controlling it must take place on a worldwide basis. Many individual states have laws regulating the international transfer of arms, and some regions have agreements in place to do the same, but too often they are not legally binding, not properly enforced and not based on adequate criteria.
	Of course, a considerable number of countries are not signed up to any sort of multilateral agreement and do not have well developed national laws in this area, so what regulation we do have, in the absence of an arms trade treaty, is patchy and inconsistent, so creating an environment that is all too easily exploited by unscrupulous arms traders. Consequently, weapons get into the wrong hands, where they are used mercilessly to facilitate serious human rights abuses, armed violence and conflict, destabilising regions and further impoverishing people and communities in the process.
	It is estimated that armed violence costs Africa $19 billion every year—coincidentally and ironically, roughly the same amount that the continent receives in development aid. The dangers and the damage of an absence of adequate regulation on the international transfer of conventional weapons have been recognised for a long time, going back to 1995 when a group of Nobel peace prize laureates proposed globally binding rules on arms control.
	The main message that I want to put over this evening is that, yes, we need an arms trade treaty and we need it now, but not just any agreement that bears the title will do. It must be something that will make a real, practical difference—a treaty that will save lives.

Tom Greatrex: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does he agree that, although an arms trade
	treaty needs widespread support to be effective, given that 150 of the UN’s 193 member states support a comprehensive and robust treaty, a strong treaty with a large number of signatories and the potential for more is better than a weak treaty with a few more signatories?

Martin Caton: I completely agree; my hon. Friend has made it unnecessary for me to give part of my speech, but I will mention an alternative option, if the worst comes to the worst, for trying to get something really valuable.
	I am chair of the newly formed all-party group on weapons and protection of civilians. We have made it our first priority to work for an arms trade treaty that is robust and workable. We were persuaded to do so by the group of non-governmental organisations that make up the Control Arms Coalition—organisations that have been working for many years to try to achieve the objective of such a treaty.
	What do we mean when we call for a robust and workable arms trade treaty? We can achieve it by bringing together countries’ existing obligations and commitments, and other widely accepted norms of state behaviour, under international law and applying them to the trade in conventional weapons.
	In practice, that means establishing in international law a binding obligation to prevent transfers of weapons if the arms would pose a substantial risk of being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law, or to undermine socio-economic development and poverty reduction goals. States should be required to conduct rigorous case-by-case assessments of all proposed imports, exports and international transfers of conventional arms to enable them to prevent those that breach the criteria of the treaty.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I know that he recognises the excellent work done by NGOs on this issue. Does he agree that any treaty needs to address the whole issue of resale? An awful lot of arms get transferred to countries that use them inappropriately.

Martin Caton: That is absolutely right. As I am sure that the Minister will report, there is a real danger in negotiations at present; some states are trying to reduce various things that should be covered. We want a comprehensive treaty.
	The treaty needs to cover all types of conventional weaponry, munitions, armaments and related articles used for potential lethal force in military and law enforcement operations, as well as their parts and accessories, machines and the technologies and expertise for making, developing and maintaining them. It must have strong and effective implementation systems, including a public and transparent reporting mechanism, good monitoring, reporting and verification procedures, and provisions for settling disputes over suspected violations of the treaty. To achieve that, the treaty must also provide institutional support and periodic review for those states that do not have experience of enforcing a high standard of arms transfer control. That will require both resources and technical assistance.
	The treaty must create an international framework of legal obligation, but it must be implemented nationally. Arms transfer decisions will still have to be decided by national Governments, but under the treaty they will be obliged to deny any transfer that breaches the arms trade treaty criteria.
	When the all-party group decided to prioritise securing the treaty, we set ourselves the task of convincing the UK Government to fight for the sort of robust agreement at the UN that I have just described. We secured a meeting with the Minister, who is leading on the issue, and his diplomatic team, along with the NGOs that I have mentioned. We were very pleased to learn at that meeting that we did not have to convince the Minister or his team; it became apparent that their objectives for a strong, effective treaty mirrored ours pretty well. That has been further confirmed at a joint public meeting in Westminster, at which the Minister spoke, organised by our all-party group and the all-party United Nations group, chaired by Lord Hannay of Chiswick.
	The Governments of some other nation states are, however, either opposed to such a comprehensive treaty or, at best, sceptical about it. The objections and reservations vary from state to state, so there is a real and challenging job to be done at the UN in the next couple of weeks if we are to secure our shared, progressive objectives. Given the nature and structure of treaty conferences, it is difficult during the process to get an accurate overview to help to assess the prospect of a successful outcome, but from the reports that I have received, the signs appear to have been positive and less positive so far.
	The Control Arms NGOs are pressing for what they describe as a bullet-proof treaty, and they have presented a 600,000-signature petition to Ban Ki-moon. Parliamentarians for Global Action has delivered a petition signed by 2,053 Members of Parliament from 96 countries, including, of course, from this Parliament. However, a small minority of sceptical states have managed to get the NGOs excluded from a substantial part of the conference.
	The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, showed appropriate leadership in his opening statement to delegates when he said:
	“You will need to agree on robust criteria that would help lessen the risk that transferred weapons are used to commit violations of international humanitarian law or human rights. You will also need to define the scope of the treaty to cover an extensive array of weapons and activities and that leaves no room for loopholes. Our common goal is clear: a robust and legally binding ATT that will have a real impact on the lives of those millions of people suffering from the consequences of armed conflict, repression and armed violence.”

Jeremy Corbyn: I compliment my hon. Friend on his speech. I share his disappointment that the NGOs were removed from the discussions in New York, because that is completely contrary to the spirit of the UN. Does he agree that they will be needed in the monitoring of the treaty should it finally be achieved, as that is the only way in which we will ensure its success?

Martin Caton: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The experience from recent treaties, some of them outwith the UN—for example, on landmines and cluster munitions—is not only that we have needed those in civil society to bring them about, but that we need them to watch what is going on afterwards.
	Worryingly, the statement by Ban Ki-moon was followed by a discussion paper from the new chair of the conference that fell way short of what he had described. Its stated goals and objectives for the treaty fail to require respect for international human rights law or humanitarian law. Its proposed criteria for identifying circumstances in which a transfer of arms should be denied are over-complex, inconsistent and unworkable. It uses language that has no foundation in international law and would allow weapons transfers with a significant risk that the arms would be used to violate human rights or humanitarian law or to undermine sustainable development. Its scope is far too narrow and unclear, leaving out a range of lethal munitions, technologies and activities.
	It appears that the negotiations have started very slowly, with some nations clearly attempting to block progress. In contrast, there have been strong calls for a robust treaty from a number of states, including Norway, Australia and the Caribbean community countries. The UK delegation has similarly called for
	“a robust, effective and legally binding”
	ATT. Every delegation in such negotiations will have its own red lines beyond which there can be no compromise because fundamental principles would be lost—the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I will not ask the Minister to describe, in the middle of negotiations, what his red lines are, but I urge him and his delegation to redouble their efforts to secure the ATT that we in this House all want.
	In particular, we need to make it clear that the treaty must require states to refuse transfers with a substantial risk that they will be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law and humanitarian law, and there should be no agreement to so-called mitigation measures that would allow transfers even where those risks applied. Similarly, development must be a clear criterion against which to assess transfers.
	I should like to ask the Minister some specific questions that I hope he will be able to answer. So far, the process seems to have been dominated by a small minority of countries intent on disrupting and delaying the negotiations. Have he and his team been able to make bilateral contacts to help to speed up progress, and if so, who has the UK identified to work with or influence? On criteria, the new chair’s paper seems to be heavily influenced by the US, with much weaker proposals than those in the previous chair’s draft treaty. How is the UK team going to secure the oft-repeated aim for robust criteria based on international human rights law and humanitarian law?
	I congratulate the Minister on the UK’s intervention at the conference that referred to the positive role that the ATT can have in reducing armed violence and gender-based violence. That needs to be addressed in the criteria section. Is that one of the UK’s priorities in the negotiations? If so, what are he and his team doing to encourage other states to support its inclusion in the treaty?
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), I appeal to the Minister not to settle for a weak treaty. It would be better to have a smaller number of signatories and a strong treaty. I am not suggesting that the Minister should be thinking about failure at this time. However, if the only treaty
	that we can get is a very weak one, we should not sign up to it, but should join with the progressive countries and get agreement at the General Assembly to a strong treaty. I hope that it does not come to that. I wish the Minister and his delegation every success in securing the robust and effective treaty that he wants and that this Parliament supports.

Alistair Burt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing this debate on the arms trade treaty. I thank him for his courtesy in letting me and my officials have a copy of his remarks, which will make it easier to respond directly to his questions.
	As we can tell from this debate and as I know from my correspondence, this issue commands a great deal of cross-party interest and support. The hon. Gentleman, the other Members who are present and many others feel passionately about this issue and follow it closely. I returned recently from the treaty negotiations in New York, where I had the good fortune to meet the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who is in her place tonight, and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). That emphasises the interest that colleagues have in seeing as much of the process as possible after waiting for so long.
	The timing of this debate is opportune, coming as it does at the mid-point of the highly significant negotiations that began in New York last week. It offers an opportunity to take stock of the negotiations and to set out the Government’s priorities for and commitment to a robust and legally binding treaty. I briefed the all-party parliamentary groups on the United Nations, on landmines and unexploded weapons of conflict, and on weapons and protection of civilians at the end of April. I stressed that securing a positive outcome in July would not be easy, but that we would do everything within our power to secure a good result.
	Nothing that has happened since I attended the opening day of the conference has led me to change my view. This remains an incredibly complex negotiation, made more difficult by a hard core of countries that would like to derail the negotiations, as the hon. Member for Gower said. I assure the House that the UK’s teams in London and New York—and our embassies and high commissions across the world, because sometimes the decision makers are not in New York, but in their home capitals—are working long and hard to ensure a successful result.

Jeremy Lefroy: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Martin Caton) on securing this debate. Has the Minister spoken with his colleagues at the Department for International Development about how this trade affects the impact of UK development money, given the considerable amount of money that the UK taxpayer is spending in some of the worst affected regions of the world?

Alistair Burt: I assure my hon. Friend that I have spoken long and frequently with my colleagues at the Department for International Development, and in particular with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who will be going to the negotiations next week.
	It is clear that in a number of the countries that are most affected by the misery of an unregulated arms trade, we have deep concerns about all sorts of other issues. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of that element of the negotiations and to the need for joint working. He and the House can be assured that there is exceptional joint working across the Government on this issue.
	It is important that we keep in mind why we are having these negotiations and why the UK has led international efforts towards an arms trade treaty for so long. Those efforts started under the last Government, for which we give them great credit, and have continued under the coalition. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions on 27 June that
	“we back the arms trade treaty, as we have done for a considerable amount of time, and lobby very vigorously on that issue.”—[Official Report, 27 June 2012; Vol. 547, c. 302.]
	The House is genuinely working together on this, recognising the problems that need to be faced.
	The problems caused by the unregulated trade in conventional arms need to be addressed. The lack of effective and coherent global regulation fuels conflict, destabilises regions and hampers effective social and economic development. It can also have devastating effects on communities and individuals, with armed violence destroying lives and livelihoods and displacing communities. A lack of regulation means that arms can slip into the hands of those who would use them against our own troops and civilians. That situation has gone on too long, and we need to stop it now.
	Those are the reasons why we have placed such a high priority on securing a treaty described as comprehensive, robust and effective. Ministers and senior officials regularly raise the arms trade treaty in our bilateral and multilateral meetings around the world, so that we can both work through particular issues that states may have and encourage positive and constructive engagement in the diplomatic conference in New York. We have used our international networks of posts to lobby in support of an arms trade treaty, and we have provided funding for non-governmental organisations from developing states to attend the conference.
	No matter how committed we are to securing an arms trade treaty—I do not think anyone is in any doubt about that commitment—we cannot deliver it on our own. That is why we have put so much emphasis on working with our international partners, NGOs and representatives of the UK defence industry in the run-up to the conference. We have collaborated closely with the treaty’s co-authors, the EU and the P5, and will continue to do so as the negotiations progress, to seek to achieve a successful conclusion.
	To get a truly effective treaty, we need standards not only high enough to meet our aims but with the global reach provided by the broadest participation of states, including the major arms exporters. It was always my intention to travel to New York for the start of the diplomatic conference, to signal the UK’s continuing commitment to securing an arms trade treaty. I arrived at the beginning of the first week and saw at first hand the real challenges that our delegation and other treaty supporters will need to overcome to ensure a successful
	outcome by the end of the month. In fact, the start of the conference was delayed for a couple of days by one such challenge, which threatened the start of the negotiations. The question of Palestine’s status in the United Nations is important, and there are plenty of colleagues in the Chamber tonight who understand that very well, but it cannot and should not be decided by the UN process on the arms trade treaty.
	Despite the distraction and the loss of a couple of days, negotiations are now firmly under way, but challenges remain. To answer the first question that the hon. Member for Gower asked me, a particular problem that has dogged the first two weeks has come from a small group of states that continue to try to thwart the will of the vast majority of the international community, using a smokescreen of procedural points to stop substantive engagement on the issues that really matter. Of course, when a country has a real concern about what an arms trade treaty might contain or how it might operate, we will listen to it and work through its concerns, as is only right. However, we will not allow the conference to be railroaded by states that want only to prevent eventual agreement. We have already lost two days to procedural wrangling, and we cannot afford to lose further time.
	Despite all that, the process is well under way. Ambassador Moritan continues to steer us towards our eventual goal, despite the choppy waters. Following my visit last week, I spoke to the ambassador on the telephone on Tuesday and offered him the UK’s full support. As I mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for International Development will be in New York next week, helping to sustain the momentum of the process and maintain our leading role at this critical time.
	I have seen the engagement of our delegation in negotiations, and I do not think the House can overestimate how effective and useful its members have been, how much they know and how engaged they have been in the process in the many years since it started. A Minister’s presence can add a bit of weight. Whether that comes through my right hon. Friend’s physical presence or through me making the telephone calls that are needed to certain capitals, the House can be assured that our comprehensive effort will continue across Government right until the very end.
	A programme of work for the conference has been agreed, and two main committees have been formed to look at different aspects of the treaty. They are being ably chaired by the Netherlands and Morocco and are gathering the views of UN member states quickly and effectively, trying to make up for the time that has been lost.
	I regret that agreement on a programme of work has meant that some meetings are closed to the public. Despite that, we still recognise the important part civil society has to play in the ATT negotiations. The UK delegation is in constant touch with non-governmental organisations in New York and meets with them regularly to ensure their views are heard. It is important that we continue to work closely with them at this crucial point. They have been instrumental in the progress we have made on the ATT and we still very much need their help and expertise if we are to be successful.
	I tried to remain close to NGOs in the run-up to the negotiations and considered whether they would formally join the delegation. For perfectly understandable reasons—
	namely, for their independence—they felt that that was not the right thing to do, but we continue to stay close. At the end of this weekend, I intend to speak on the telephone to our ambassador in New York who is dealing with the negotiations. I will probably also call the representatives of Amnesty International and Oxfam on behalf of others to see how they are with the process and to maintain my contact with them. That emphasises how much the Government are trying to keep engaged with NGOs.

Jeremy Corbyn: Can the Minister give us some good news about the involvement of NGOs in the monitoring process when the protocol is finally agreed, which will hopefully be soon?

Alistair Burt: The role of NGOs in monitoring and in the transparency efforts that we are trying to make in the treaty will be vital. They can see an important role for themselves and we will certainly encourage that. I am very keen to keep them involved, but practically, not everybody can go to the same meetings. The chair has taken the view that to get things done now—we have lost a bit of time—he has had to produce this programme. Everybody over there understands that, but we will do our best to keep everyone in touch.
	It is too early to say how the negotiations will conclude. A lot can change in two weeks in a multilateral negotiation of this sort—I am sure colleagues appreciate that momentum builds either towards success or something different. It is already clear that contentious issues remain, particularly around the treaty’s scope and criteria. As the hon. Member for Gower has noted, and as he said in his second question, a new chair’s paper has issued. The text is a discussion paper based on his consultations with all UN member states. Although the Government believe the paper is a good basis for discussions—we welcome large parts of the document, including, for example, the retention of ammunition in the scope—there are undoubtedly aspects that we believe need further work and strengthening.
	One such aspect is the section on criteria. The UK delegation has made it clear in its interventions in New York and its bilateral consultations that the UK would like the language on criteria to be strengthened. The UK supports an ATT containing a mandatory refusal if there is substantial risk that the export would be used to commit a serious violation of international humanitarian or human rights law. Ministers and senior officials are echoing those sentiments in their bilateral and multilateral meetings on the treaty.
	The hon. Gentleman also rightly raised in his third question the positive role the ATT could have in reducing armed violence and gender-based violence. Let me assure
	him and the House that gender-based violence is an important issue for many states, not least the UK. We want it included in the treaty. All groups, whether characterised by age, gender, ethnicity, religion or other, should be afforded protection by an ATT. We will continue to work with like-minded states to ensure we secure the strongest possible ATT.

John McDonnell: May I reiterate on behalf of the House the view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton)? We need firmer measures. If that means fewer measures, so be it. We then take the battle into the Assembly itself.

Alistair Burt: As the hon. Member for Gower suggested, I do not want to indicate at this stage what the likely outcome will be, but I am on record as saying at one or two meetings that we will not sign an agreement that makes things weaker. There is no point in that, and there has to be a moment when we walk away, but I will not hide it from colleagues that the choice might end up being very difficult. We want to get enough in to make it worth while and we want enough people to sign to make it effective, but there will be some tough choices to make at the end. All I can say is that we will do our best to be as inclusive as possible when we get there. Then we will see. There will always be a tomorrow. That is important. Whether or not this is as successful as we want—it is highly unlikely to be written as we would want it—there will always be the opportunity of a further process.
	The commitment of the Government, the UK delegation, the wider team in London and our network of posts around the world remains clear, and reflects the view of the House. We will work tirelessly, co-ordinating closely with civil society and the UK defence industry in support of our common goal. This is an historic opportunity to make the world a safer place. The international community owes it to the people whose lives have been blighted by conflict and armed violence associated with the unregulated trade in arms to use the remaining two weeks to maximum effect. The UK will be working tirelessly to this end. One of the purposes for which the UN was founded was to achieve co-operation in solving problems of a humanitarian character and to encourage respect for human rights. An effective, legally binding ATT will help to do that and more, and we are sparing no effort in our pursuit of that aim.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.